Slashdot Mirror


Judge Tosses Wikimedia's Anti-NSA Lawsuit Because Wikipedia Isn't Big Enough (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader writes: A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Wikimedia Foundation, Amnesty International, and others against the NSA and other U.S. intelligence agencies for their surveillance of internet communications. The judge used some odd reasoning in his ruling to absolve the NSA of any constitutional violations. He said that since the plaintiffs couldn't prove that all upstream internet communications were monitored, they didn't have standing to challenge whatever communications were monitored. This is curious, given that tech companies are known to be under gag orders preventing them from discussing certain types of government data collection. The judge also made a strange argument about Wikipedia's size: "For one thing, plaintiffs insist that Wikipedia's over one trillion annual Internet communications is significant in volume. But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."

213 comments

  1. Nothing new with FISA courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't know about it legally (because courts / politicians said so), then how can you legally prove that we are heading for 1940 era Germany mistakes?

    1. Re:Nothing new with FISA courts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because you are still alive.

  2. The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, forget the courts. They're completely in the pockets of the politicians and Big Money. Lois Lerner just got off Scot free, and I'm willing to bet money that Clinton will as well. If you want justice in this day and age and you aren't a 1%'er, you'd better dish it out yourself or organize with others, because that's the only way it's going to happen.

    In the meantime, encrypt everything you possibly can. Destroy any data you no longer need. Don't keep logs on anything any longer than YOU need to. Make everything as difficult as possible for the establishment.

    1. Re: The courts are rigged by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why didnt slashdot post the judges name?

      They should help publicize the name of this traitor.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re: The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      US District Judge Richard D Bennet

      It is the second link of the article.

      He is both a sellout and a traitor with this ruling.

      I really hope that later we hear some really dirty shit about him that costs them man everything released from the same channels he just sold us all out to defend.
      Also hope the absurdity of his judgment can be overturned.

    3. Re: The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US District Judge Richard D Bennet

      So Bennett Hasselton does have a real job apart from his alleged editorial oversight of /. eh? Time to get a short length of rope and a tall tree. Length and height are relative, right Judge?

    4. Re: The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just take a look at his bio. Of course he's a sellout and a traitor.

    5. Re: The courts are rigged by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...for varying definitions of a "real" job.

      I was always under the impression that a real job requires some honest work to be done.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why didnt slashdot post the judges name?

      They should help publicize the name of this traitor.

      RICHARD D. BENNETT

      (410) 962-3190;
      judge_richard_bennett@mdd.uscourts.gov

    7. Re:The courts are rigged by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. If you're going to go that route, slightly alter any data you don't need any more, and THEN encrypt it. When you do the alteration, keep in mind that you don't want it to make you look bad. You should also occasionally encrypt /dev/random for a minute or so. (Don't encrypt /dev/urandom, because you don't want to use up your entropy.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re: The courts are rigged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS please. I'm not typically for doxing of any kind but when the rule of law is clearly breaking down under the weight of government corruption... well fuck em.

  3. Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But plaintiffs provide no context for assessing the significance of this figure. One trillion is plainly a large number, but size is always relative. For example, one trillion dollars are of enormous value, whereas one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."

    One trillion divided by one is a lot of things.

    But one divided by one trillion is a very very very small amount of that thing.

    Therefore, one must conclude that one trillion is a vague number of Internet connections per year. What does it even mean?

    1. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by astrojetsonjr · · Score: 2

      "one trillion grains of sand are but a small patch of beach."

      The largest dump truck in the world would have to carry more than nine full loads to move a trillion grains of sand. A regular dump truck will have to make 150 trips. (first hit on Google "how much is one trillion grains of sand."

      In money terms it's about $9 million, that's what NJ spent to replace the sand along one stretch of beach. 150 dump truck loads is a lot.

      Now 1 trillion angels, that's really really tiny.....

    2. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      How many internet communications are there in total? Without that the number one trillion is meaningless, and this must be what the judge meant.

    3. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      In money terms it's about $9 million, that's what NJ spent to replace the sand along one stretch of beach. 150 dump truck loads is a lot.

      If each grain of sand is 1 mm^3, then a trillion grains is 1000 m^3. So NJ paid $9000 per cubic meter. When I built my son's sandbox, I paid $50 for a cubic yard (slightly less than a cubic meter). Somewhere in NJ, there is a very rich dump truck driver. Probably Chris Christie's brother-in-law.

    4. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're assuming that all of the costs are to buying the sand. This may not be the case, that above number is uncited, but imagine the labor to place the sand is included, the labor to clean up the area where you are putting the sand to remove debris, the labor to decide where to put the sand and how to avoid issues with the tide, and so forth.

    5. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The judge must be extending the familiar legal concept of the fact that since there are 330,000,000 people in the United States, the rights of any one single individual does not matter.

    6. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite. The rights of EVERY SINGLE ONE of those 330 millions matter.

      Rights either matter universally and for everyone or they're not rights but privileges, to be taken away at the whim of whoever is in power at any moment without notice. They are rights exactly because this cannot happen. If it can, don't bother talking about having a right anymore because you don't.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When purchasing truckloads of anything, the product in the truck is often a lot cheaper than the fuel to drive the truck and the hourly wage of the driver.

    8. Re:Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Beach sand isn't play sand. Play sand is from a river, and is collected as a byproduct of the more valuable gravel and rock. That is why it is cheap. If they were going out and collecting just straight play sand out of a river valley, above the amount already available, it would be much, much more expensive.

      Beach sand has to be dredged off the ocean floor. And collected carefully, after environmental impact and other site analysis is done by professionals. And often the equipment isn't sitting around on standby for that sort of project, so you'll either be paying really high equipment rental on everything, or buying much of the heavy equipment before the project, and selling it afterwards. Not only to collect it, hold it for draining so it can be moved by truck, move by truck, and dump it, but delivery probably can't be done just by telling the trucks where to dump. The trucks are likely to sink into the beach if you try to drive right up and dump it in the surf. You're going to need a bunch of light tractors or some similar thing.

      1000 m^3 is too much for a small project, and not enough for a large project. If they wanted to save money, they could purchase more, and have the rest delivered in the future; but governments are run in debt, with no cash reserves at all, and so the financing would eat the savings.

    9. Re: Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I do whatever it is that you do professionally it doesn't cost me a dime. Yet when I hire you to do the same thing , you will probably want to get paid. Curious world. Maybe the cost of things is not so much related to the actual material (e.g. sand) but more to the labour that goes into making, shipping, delivering, installing ... the damn thing?!

    10. Re: Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true! Go figure.

    11. Re: Wow, this reasoning is awesome.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely missed the sarcasm there. You might want to work on that.

  4. Meh by RevDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My guess is for whatever reason, the judge did not want to rule against the NSA. So just used whatever barely coherent reason seemed remotely plausible.

    As a federal judge, you're not going to ever get in trouble for protecting the NSA regardless of the gaping holes in your ruling.

    1. Re:Meh by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Either that, or the lawsuit had no merit.

    2. Re:Meh by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      Lawsuit may have merits, but that doesn't may the lawyers will have anything to present. Regardless of what law is broken, there needs to be presented some kind of evidence. Otherwise you could open lawsuits to start investigations.

    3. Re:Meh by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder what they have on him? Probably looked at something scandalous or illegal online once, or maybe a member of his family did. Or perhaps they know he visited somewhere a federal judge shouldn't visit thanks to phone metadata.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fighting the system with the system, crap I'm confused now

    5. Re:Meh by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think that's it. If the suit actually had no merit, the judge could easily have said so and explained why. This looks more like the judge had decided to throw out the suit and was looking for a plausible excuse. It's going to be interesting to see what the Appellate Court has to say about it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Meh by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      If the lawsuit was badly written, this ruling makes a lot more sense and becomes rather inevitable. If you were filing on behalf of everybody then the judge is perfectly correct--and this is a mistake on the part of the lawyers filing suit. If you are filing only on behalf of the people whom you yourselves represent--which I suspect can be done with an opening for people to join in--then the judge's reasoning for dismissing the lawsuit is flawed and probably can be appealed.

      In each direction there's an important precedent to consider: it's just as bad as to unquestioningly accept a small percentage's claim of the right to represent the greater body of people as it is to require those filing to know the full extent of harm done, especially before discovery.

      Regardless of your feelings about this suit, eventually either problem will turn up in a way you will not like.

    7. Re:Meh by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      My guess is for whatever reason, the judge did not want to rule against the NSA. So just used whatever barely coherent reason seemed remotely plausible.

      As a federal judge, you're not going to ever get in trouble for protecting the NSA regardless of the gaping holes in your ruling.

      Start a doxing campaign against this judge and others who rule completely contrary to the Constitution. Dig up everything possible and make it public.

      Make sure there's a high price to pay to be a lapdog for TPTB.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    8. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One trillion judicial neurons is a relative number with no context. One cannot judge the wisdom of a ruling by quoting the judicial neurons employed in making that ruling." - Anonymous Coward

    9. Re:Meh by RevDisk · · Score: 1

      Harassing a federal judge. Yeah, no way that'd go badly.

    10. Re:Meh by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Either that, or the lawsuit had no merit.

      The judge is requiring a ridiculous level of proof before allowing the lawsuit to go forward. It's like the concept of discovery didn't exist and a plaintiff would have to have all the necessary evidence before initiating a lawsuit.

      Imagine if every single individual sued the government over spying. According to this judge, every lawsuit would be thrown out because there was insufficient proof that each individual was being spied upon.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    11. Re:Meh by KGIII · · Score: 2

      Well, I suspect the Appellate Court will say, "Pound sand."

      It will probably be couched as something like, "The plaintiffs in this case have failed to demonstrate standing." The case will be dismissed with prejudice. A booming voice for the heavens will play, and it will be licensed from Microsoft - "tada.wav."

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Meh by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is highly unlikely that an ACLU lawsuit is "badly written." They employ top-shelf lawyers, and pick out a small number of cases to bring. They have a good track record, too. Expect appeals.

    13. Re:Meh by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Harassing a federal judge. Yeah, no way that'd go badly.

      It's *ALREADY* "going badly" for citizens of the US!

      Posting information that's part of the public record and openly available to anyone is not illegal.

      Newsflash! If the US government keeps on this same trajectory the entire world will suffer, not just those in the US. The US has all the makings to be the most horrific and deadly tyranny the Earth has ever known.

      It's gotten to the point where the only way left for the government to "take it to the next level" is to just declare martial law and start filling FEMA camps and mass graves.

      When is it time to take action? Waiting until they actually start setting up neighborhood checkpoints and shipping people to camps is a tad late.

      When judges routinely rule black is white and day is night to protect and cover up illegal and un-Constitutional actions by the government and it's officials, do you expect people are going to have any respect for authority?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    14. Re:Meh by shentino · · Score: 2

      That catch 22 is deliberate on the part of the government.

    15. Re:Meh by moonlandingchap · · Score: 1

      Harassing a federal judge. Yeah, no way that'd go badly.

      It's *ALREADY* "going badly" for citizens of the US!

      Posting information that's part of the public record and openly available to anyone is not illegal.

      Newsflash! If the US government keeps on this same trajectory the entire world will suffer, not just those in the US. The US has all the makings to be the most horrific and deadly tyranny the Earth has ever known.

      It's gotten to the point where the only way left for the government to "take it to the next level" is to just declare martial law and start filling FEMA camps and mass graves.

      When is it time to take action? Waiting until they actually start setting up neighborhood checkpoints and shipping people to camps is a tad late.

      When judges routinely rule black is white and day is night to protect and cover up illegal and un-Constitutional actions by the government and it's officials, do you expect people are going to have any respect for authority?

      Strat

      The US is already the worst thing to happen to planet earth! Most poluting country on earth by a long way, most weapons built and then sold on to feed wars around the world all in the name of making a dollar. Ruined the internet for everyone and not just with the more recent NSA stuff, but with things like the digital melenium act etc. Setting up private islands and using them as non trial/conviction detention centers for it's own goals. millitary drones, starting more wars than any terrorist group ever and justfying these combats anyway it likes by lying to the public and the world. Then leaving before the was is over, declaring the war is won (when it's still ongoing and not won by either side) just to save face and few dollars.

      How can a country that uses millitary grade equipment in it's police departments to be used aginst it's own people, be judged as anything other than pure evil? I doubt that the people on the street are as bad as the governments that have brought about all this global missery but the ever growing list of haters don't care.

      Then to find and talk about weather judges are just lap dogs or puppets to the larger super secret evil powers that be, of course they are. The US has been found to lie about anything and everything it has been caught doing ever and even the things it wriggled out of. it's even had presidents impeached and one who just wormed his way out of it. Bush is a war criminal and walks around a free man, some whistle blowers are locked away and will unlikely ever see the light of day again.

      Let there be no doubt, the US has already caused millions on deaths around the world with it's action in the last 60+ years. With attempts from gouvernments for extra spying powers being the current wave of change, do you think they are going to change in a direction that is best for anyone but the few people that hold power?

      you speak as if this is a future about to happen, wake up and smell the coffee, it's long since started.

    16. Re: Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should just do that... how about a class action suit against the NSA? People vs. Big brother.

    17. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we never got to the part where merit was evaluated. Instead this ruling avoids any such evaluation with blatant abuse of process.

  5. The annoying thing about common law countries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that their judgments are nearly always technically correct, no matter how stupid the result. English (style) law is about letter, not spirit, and involves a steadfastly adversarial rather than conciliatory approach - in significant contrast to EU law (which reflects more that of mainland Europe).

    So, whenever you say something, you always have to think about how it can be taken out of context and reinterpreted against your favour. The judge rarely has the ability to give a verdict of, "Well you know you both have a point and like/hate you both, frankly..." - so, once he's decided upon his conclusion ;-), expect him work back and tear a new asshole out of anything you've said that doesn't quite fit what the law wants. This is why any half-competent lawyer is clear about context, which is ultimately the way in which the fact you are hoping to present fits the letter of the law (in your favour).

  6. Re:The annoying thing about common law countries.. by queazocotal · · Score: 2

    Especially fun is that you usually don't get to disagree with the judges findings.
    That is he can make a claim - and as long as it is arguably reasonably supported by the facts, and not so unreasonable that 'no reasonable person' would make the same decision (very, very far from 'was the decision reasonable), you can't challenge that at any appelate level.

  7. $1,000,000,000,000 is of enormous value... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...whereas the amount it takes to buy a judge is much smaller.

  8. a judge using odd reasoning?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't say! Has anyone seen a judge or member of congress NOT base their decisions on fallacies? It's like we weed out anyone who isn't a retard when putting people in charge of things in the USA.

    1. Re:a judge using odd reasoning?! by shentino · · Score: 1

      The gatekeepers never let any good people into power.

      it's that way on purpose.

  9. If it wasn't for the deletionists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wikipedia might have been big enough.

    1. Re: If it wasn't for the deletionists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever page I've ever created has been deleted despite having the required number of sources. Apparently winning an NCAA championship isn't notable.

    2. Re: If it wasn't for the deletionists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was deleted by someone who wanted to write it themselves.

    3. Re: If it wasn't for the deletionists... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nearly half a million NCAA athletes. Being one isn't notable.

    4. Re: If it wasn't for the deletionists... by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are a LOT of chess players around the world, so winning a chess championship isn't notable?

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  10. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.

  11. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.

  12. The judicial wisdom on this bench ... by quax · · Score: 1

    ... is only rivaled by the sophisticated thinking that goes on in the 114th United States Congress.

    1. Re:The judicial wisdom on this bench ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's because sand sinks, which means it weighs more than a duck, which means it is not a witch.

  13. Wookie Judgements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Lets see your argument .. look, a wookie! You failed to make your case. Next!

    1. Re: Wookie Judgements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I had some mod points about now. Vote this up insightful humor.

  14. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.

    . . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter. Then the letter instructs him how to rule on the case.

    All, legal, no problem . . .

    . . . or . . . ?

    What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?

    Does the US government issue issue letters like this? Who knows? There is no oversight from anyone on what these letters require you to do. Maybe Snowden knows . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. So you're saying... by Dr.+Jest · · Score: 2

    Wikipedia didn't meet the notability requirements.

    1. Re:So you're saying... by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yip. Someone's run off with the content. Probably Willie on Wheels. (I miss his antics. Wikipedia used to be fun before they figured out security. Now it's just a bunch of mundanes with a chip on their shoulder.)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    piss take or the nsa have something on the judge,

  17. Disbar that motherfucker. by jcr · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dereliction of duty.

    HIs job is to enforce the constitution, not to invent asinine excuses for letting the government violate our rights.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dereliction of duty.

      His job is to enforce the constitution, not to invent asinine excuses for letting the government violate our rights.

      -jcr

      Unfortunately, you are incorrect. A federal judge's responsibility is to rule in favor of established law and precedent. The only judges with the power to rule otherwise, without possibility of retribution of having their ruling overturned serve on the Supreme Court of the U.S., but even supreme court rulings can overlook 'stare decisis' (latin for the requirement that judges repect precedent, especially those of higher courts but originally for British common law as well). How else would the Dred Scott decision have been reversed and civil rights for black people and other minorities been established?

      There is no means by which SCOTUS judges can be removed from office, but federal judges can be. And just as you may have come to suspect, federal judges can be removed by elected officials... which would seem to indicate that a political decision such as this one may be, are controversial and grounds for termination. One would hope that termination is only temporal and not corporal, but we're all aware that the espionage 'community' doesn't play by the same rules as we might wish. (Isn't that the way it plays out in all the spy movies?)

    2. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dereliction of duty.

      HIs job is to enforce the constitution, not to invent asinine excuses for letting the government violate our rights.

      -jcr

      Fuck off shithead.

    3. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dereliction of duty.

      BULLSHIT.

      HIs job is to enforce the constitution, not to invent asinine excuses for letting the government violate our rights.

      -jcr

      BULLSHIT.

      No idea what you even mean by "enforce the constitution'. The closest "enforcer" of the constitution the US has would be the SCOTUS.

      This judge did his job, and threw out the lawsuit on solid legal grounds.

      These are the checks and balances that make our governing system the best in the world.

      This is how our founding fathers meant the system to work.

      If you don't like it then fuck off to some communist hell hole.

    4. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      If what you say is true, and it may be, then not only is it no surprise that the law is held in increasing lack of respect, but it deserves to be held in even less respect.

      I deny that he had solid legal grounds. Claiming that Wikipedia even alone, much less in combination with the other parties, was not sufficiently significant in size is sufficient to justify nearly total lack of respect.

      Additionally, claiming that when you can't provide evidence for something that the government explicitly hides from you, the case is invalid, while it has precedent, is also grounds for enormous lack of respect.

      And this is not the system our founding fathers established. If you think it is you've never read a history book outside of grade school. (Well, it's been awhile since I looked at a high school text, they may have been tortured into agreeing to that notion by now...but they sure didn't use to.)

      For that matter, historically there was no way that the government COULD have kept tabs on everyone, so claiming that this is the system set up by our founding fathers is blatantly idiotic.

      That said, I do agree that Lincoln set in motion the movement towards the current system with his increasing centralization of federal power. I'm not sure what his alternatives would have been...but I'm rather sure he didn't foresee the NSA.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dereliction of duty.

      His job is to enforce the constitution, not to invent asinine excuses for letting the government violate our rights.

      -jcr

      Unfortunately, you are incorrect. A federal judge's responsibility is to rule in favor of established law and precedent. The only judges with the power to rule otherwise, without possibility of retribution of having their ruling overturned serve on the Supreme Court of the U.S.

      Yes, the only judges who can't be overturned by a higher court are the Supreme Court Justices. No, that doesn't mean a federal judge can't rule something unconstitutional, or a violation of our rights. In fact, it happens on a regular basis, and those cases make up the *majority* of what the Supreme Court eventually handles. The threat of 'retribution' by way of having a ruling overturned isn't much of a threat at all. It happens on a fairly regular basis as well, which is *why* we have appeals courts in the first place.

      The person you replied to was, indeed, completely correct, despite your unsupported claim to the contrary. I say unsupported, because you said, "Unfortunately, you are incorrect.", and then proceeded to go off into left field with unrelated stuff.

    6. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If what you say is true, and it may be, then not only is it no surprise that the law is held in increasing lack of respect, but it deserves to be held in even less respect.

      I deny that he had solid legal grounds. Claiming that Wikipedia even alone, much less in combination with the other parties, was not sufficiently significant in size is sufficient to justify nearly total lack of respect.

      Additionally, claiming that when you can't provide evidence for something that the government explicitly hides from you, the case is invalid, while it has precedent, is also grounds for enormous lack of respect.

      And this is not the system our founding fathers established. If you think it is you've never read a history book outside of grade school. (Well, it's been awhile since I looked at a high school text, they may have been tortured into agreeing to that notion by now...but they sure didn't use to.)

      For that matter, historically there was no way that the government COULD have kept tabs on everyone, so claiming that this is the system set up by our founding fathers is blatantly idiotic.

      That said, I do agree that Lincoln set in motion the movement towards the current system with his increasing centralization of federal power. I'm not sure what his alternatives would have been...but I'm rather sure he didn't foresee the NSA.

      Jesus, what a nut job.

      I have read all the documents the founding fathers authored, they are fascinating, and much better than any "history book". I hear to Hitler authored some good books, you must believe his bullshit too, since "book"?

    7. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you are incorrect. A federal judge's responsibility is to rule in favor of established law and precedent.

      Wrong. A judge's duty is to evaluate both the letter and spirit of the law with regards to a case presented by the involved parties and their counsel in order to render a judgement. Precedent is not law. "Case law" is not law. Law is law, with the United States Constitution being the highest law in the land.

    8. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by jcr · · Score: 1

      The closest "enforcer" of the constitution the US has would be the SCOTUS.

      What's your next guess?

      Go read the oath of office that every federal judge swears to upon taking office.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:Disbar that motherfucker. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MUH HITLER

      Get fucked commie.

  18. Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    only in a corrupt shit-country like the United States could something like this be argued. What kind of stupid rationalization on Wikipedia supposed insignificance is that? This coward has been bought, wipped and tamed long ago.

    1. Re:Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only in a corrupt shit-country like the United States could something like this be argued. What kind of stupid rationalization on Wikipedia supposed insignificance is that? This coward has been bought, wipped and tamed long ago.

      It is going on everywhere. Wake up and smell the coffee.

  19. What?! by Cybersonic · · Score: 1

    They made a point. It's a valid one. Wikipedia is global and this response represents a large amount of people. Respond appropriately.

    --
    Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
  20. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This "judge" ought to be thrown out. He wasn't even born in the United States, so his authority is a sham and his words hollow.

  21. Had it happen to myself too... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was adding to a page on hosts files, which really, Really, REALLY showed their abilities + merits. They deleted it telling me "we're not an encylopedia" etc. - et al, well WTF ARE YOU FOR THEN? It was valid information I could back easily (with or without 'experts', many of whom I KNOW I could run the hell over easily).

    I kept adding VERY pertinent information. Some of which they kept (not crediting me, but who the hell cares? There's 2 kinds of people in this world imo - those who "write about others" & those DOING what those who write about them only WISH they could do...)

    * There's bullshit everywhere man. Get used to it.

    Someone's agenda was 'upset' when I pointed out they were NOT extolling the hosts files' FULL virtues (intentionally I truly suspect) but sure as hell *TRYING* to keep any (not many IF any) 'downsides' emphasized... & then?

    I gave up on the place. I've found quite a few areas on supposedly 'informative' pages that misquote, don't supply the 'full gamut' of what's really possible for information, etc. - et al!

    APK

    P.S.=> Someone mentioned what you said AND IN RESPONSE TO YOU - that those deleting what you wrote occurred since THEY wanted to write what YOU did, by themselves, taking credit for anything YOU put out they themselves overlooked also... & nobody's going to tell me THAT doesn't go on in this world like mad!

    I say that since a LOT of useless fools actually BELIEVE that "good artists copy, GREAT ARTISTS STEAL" is actually 'cool' to do, etc. - et al, & imo @ least?

    It IS not... apk

    1. Re:Had it happen to myself too... apk by KGIII · · Score: 1

      ...

      You know, I do like you - I even think you're right with the hosts file use (you should compile a version for Linux, it needn't be GPLed or anything and you can keep the source - just release binaries). But, you know...

      I really don't want you editing Wikipedia if your edits are anything like your Slashdot posts and your style confrontational. I'd smack your hand and tell you 'no' too. Bad APK - stay away from Wikipedia! Not yours!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  22. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What do you mean? The FBI and DHS should have copies of most of them. And Congress is ever so diligent in making sure they are following the law, because it's their job and they take it very seriously.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  23. Significance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One trillion grains of sand to the beach? A minority perhaps. One trillion grains of sand in your swim trunks, quite another. The effect on the entity is what is relevant, not the effect versus the universe where all are small.

  24. JUDICIAL REVIEW... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I wonder if that judge KNOWS what that is since it sounds like he doesn't care, OR had his arm twisted to make this "decision". It can end his career... imo @ least!

    Why?

    Well, "Gosh Judge" - HOW F'ING "BIG" DOES ONE HAVE TO BE TO GET REAL JUSTICE?

    (Not your "law", many of which are written so the "BIG" people out there can just delay you, stay after stay, in court until YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO GO AFTER THEM... they win 'by default').

    APK

    P.S.=> I'm all for justice, REAL justice, by & for the people... not single easy corrupted, bribed, blackmailed SINGLE MEN like this judge is sounding like to myself @ least... Please - anyone - FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME HERE (sometimes the way these 'summaries' are worded isn't TOO accurate & geared to stir up public hatred to further SOMEONE's agenda... it's just that I don't AGREE with the "rights of the people" being trampled... such as "FREE SPEECH" & "Free Speech Zones" because the last I knew of? THE ENTIRE USA WAS A "FREE SPEECH ZONE" for shit's sake - that was the one that clued me into the fact SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG WITH OUR COUNTRY now... very wrong!)

    ... apk

  25. Here's your bloody context by DrJimbo · · Score: 2

    One trillion connections per year is roughly the size of the traffic the Wikipedia gets. Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites on the internet.

    Next up: Judge Bennet tosses out a case because plaintif neglected to provide context for the sky being blue or water being wet. I don't know what bugs me more, this obvious attempt to subvert justice or the lame-ass excuse used for doing so. It is insulting. It's like the judge is telling us the fix is so far in that he doesn't even have to bother to appear to make sense.

    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- forever.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
    1. Re:Here's your bloody context by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      One trillion connections per year is roughly the size of the traffic the Wikipedia gets.

      So one trillion is a big number yes. If there are ten trillion connections that make 10%. If there are 100 trillion that make 1 percent. If there are 1 quadrillion that make 0.1%. Do you see how putting the raw number as a percentage of the whole changes the significance of the raw number?

      Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites

      So what? That doesn't mean there are not millions of other sites that collectively get much more traffic than Wikimedia. What if Wikimedia traffic is actually less than 1% of internet traffic? We don't know.

      What the judge is asking for is an estimate of the number of connections on the internet so that the 1 trillion number has context. He didn't say that they were insignificant. He said that the raw number, without context, is not evidence that they are significant. It is up to the one making the claim to provide evidence proving the claim. A raw number without context is not evidence.

    2. Re:Here's your bloody context by arth1 · · Score: 1

      So one trillion is a big number yes. If there are ten trillion connections that make 10%. If there are 100 trillion that make 1 percent. If there are 1 quadrillion that make 0.1%. Do you see how putting the raw number as a percentage of the whole changes the significance of the raw number?

      No, I really don't. When it comes to rights, like the rights to be secure in one's person and communications, one is a significant number.

  26. Ugh! Forced to agree, why? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thomas Drake, a good man...

    * :)

    (THAT, & "Darth Bushby" whom I have NO RESPECT FOR whatsoever, are involved...)

    APK

    P.S.=> Thanks for that link, you've TRULY "said it all" (or rather all that NEEDED to be said)... apk

  27. They were stupid to mention 1 trillion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was stupid to even make reference to a number if relevance could not be established. That was a rookie lawyer move that like most back fired. It just added fud to the equation which is most often not a good thing.

  28. Future Shock by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Future Shock is coming true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    1. Re:Future Shock by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      They should do a caveman version of that movie.

      The wheel is coming, and with it, changing of the world in ways we have no idea of. Stressing cavemen and no one is able to do anything about it.

      And humans are cross-breeding plants to create suppressants - some think that these plants may take over the world, or poison us.

      Ugh, I forgot that I lasted about two chapters into that book back in the day before declaring it lawn protection fodder.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  29. As for my asking for "correction" etc.? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: "fugetaboudit", I got what I needed RIGHT here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    APK

    P.S.=> From whoever posted it before my reply there BEFORE me as "ac" - I also found out some VERY ODD THINGS that happened here on /. in June-Nov 2013 too recently REGARDING "five eyes" trading information, doing work for the others from other nations in it:

    SLASHDOT ITSELF WAS "HACKED" BY GCHQ IN THAT SAME TIMEFRAME, & GUESS WHAT ELSE WAS GOING ON? Mr. Snowden etc. -> http://www.scmagazineuk.com/gc...

    My own brother, a fairly (or getting to be) "bigshot" in the US Military (upper field grade by now, probably Colonel & I am certain Major @ the very least, working in the pentagon nowadays last I knew of @ least) ALWAYS TOLD ME "The Feds HATE you 'nerds'"... now? I actually KNOW why!

    Suppression & can't have ANYONE that can outsmart you out there making you "lose face" bullshit - gotta be. What other f'ing reason WOULD there be? We're (mostly I think @ least, perhaps I am naive) OUT TO HELP + IMPROVE THINGS... @ least I am!

    Life is about those "little revolutions" (which a woman from Argentina & I discussed while on the way to Prague in 2010 on a train - nice lady too) - she had it 'down cold' that US "little people" can't singly "topple the world" or fix it... ideas we come up with CAN though, changing the world, for the better - imo, it IS our duty as human beings... apk

  30. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Judge fails at understanding technology, rather.

    And this won't change any time soon, at least until we get judges that actually have a faint idea of what this "inter...thing" is. And given that those geezers tend to cling to their seats until they fall off them rotting, I guess I won't live to see that happening.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  31. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    I'd publish the letter. Duh.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  32. Recursive complexity and mental computation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Develop English like languages which are easily computable. Use decision problems in said languages to communicate. Let them read. They must expend cognitive potential. Do not be worth expending such potential on. When they have influence, and this is detected, crowd mine the hell out of it. They have a finite decision making capacity, and using rule systems whose logical theories recursively grow like the Ackermann function, that it, recursive but not primitive recursive, means they either get lucky, decide mechanically and decide wrong due to diagonalisation issues in the logic, or give up computational entropy, that is, their potential to make decisions from our point of view. If we are not targets of NSA, and make their surveillance job with us easy, more pressing priorities will ensure that they do not spend much time with us. By interweaving our intercommunion structure, disturbances become readily observable. We do not need to develop quantum communication techniques when mental disciplines with the same effect already exist.

  33. Did you cheer when Dems forced Obamacare through? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think Hillary's private email server is not a HUGE deal?

    Do you think it's OK for Obama to rewrite immigration laws unilaterally?

    Does the way the IRS politicized it's work was no big deal?

    If so then don't bitch when the government blows off rules that you do want them to follow.

    Either you support the rule of law and therefore think they way Obamacare was passed STINKS, Hillary! and half the IRS need to go to JAIL, and Obama CAN NOT change immigration law without Congress, or you have no logical grounds for complaint when another arm of the government tosses the rules it's supposed to follow away.

  34. Blah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time I drive by this Judge's horse and buggy I am going to give him the what-for-who-how.

  35. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by pushing-robot · · Score: 3, Informative

    A NSL is a type of subpoena, a request for basic account info and activity logs. A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data, kill someone, or smear Crisco all over your body and dance around praising Lord Xenu. (Though if it did, you'd probably be grateful for the non-disclosure clause.)

    reference
    example

    The original purpose of non-disclosure was to avoid tipping off suspects that their communications could be monitored, but now that the proverbial cat is out of the bag and any target who worries about NSLs has surely switched to more secure communications, the secrecy around NSLs does a lot more harm than good. Of course, any change to or publicity about NSLs would rekindle debate on the legality of the program (or lack thereof), and they wouldn't want that to happen... Thankfully, people like Nicholas Merrill are forcing the issue, and hopefully there will be change...eventually.

    Hint: hyperbole doesn't help, it just distracts people from the real issue. NSLs are bad because they force people to reveal personal information without due process of law. That is all.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  36. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    You really have no choice but to publish it. If you really do believe in and support freedom of democracy, then that demand that onus is placed upon you to expose that letter. That letter demands you carry out the active actions of that demand else face punishment ie an order from a master to a slave and as such as a citizen of a supposedly (apparently) free and democratic country, you are required under all the principle of freedom and democracy to publicly challenge it, you are not a slave, your fellow citizens are not slaves and it is your duty to uphold that law, slavery is illegal in free and democratic countries. Buckle to orders issued from master to slave and you sell out all of us. A warning to them when they attempt to issue that letter is likely a safer bet, before reading because of course it defeats the point of them attempting to delivery the master to slave order in secrecy ie give it to me and I will publish it, thus defeating the point of giving it to me, so you might as well keep it (you must emphatically refuse to accept that letter under their conditions ie refuse to accept their contract).

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  37. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    If I were a judge with a gun to my head like that I'd issue a batshit-crazy ruling, like talking about the mystery of numbers and grains of sand on a beach, to at least signal something is very wrong.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  38. Disgusting. by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So this is what passes for the third box in defense of liberty these days?

    --
    ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  39. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    I would tell everyone. Because any order from any government that forces me to a) cover up something illegal b) aid them with something illegal or c) do something illegal is null and void. Nations do not have the authority to grant themselves power to ignore or break laws, nor can they make secret laws giving themselves power. Not if they also claim to be lawful nations.

    Of course they could throw me in jail or worse. It's up to each and every one of us to resist tyranny. When we don't then tyranny is what we get.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  40. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    No need for a letter. Just a quiet word in his ear that he can forget about ever being appointed to an Appeals court if he rules against the government.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  41. Fed Judges' Tenure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Article III federal judges" serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased as appointed "for life"). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judge#References

    Captcha=Trapped

  42. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by khallow · · Score: 1

    What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?

    It'd be fake because they wouldn't put something like that in writing.

  43. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not even the point. But getting an order to KILL SOMEONE, while not being in any shape or condition, not having any training or other qualification to execute such an order, can only mean one of two things: Either I am supposed to get killed in the process or they need a patsy.

    My chances for survival are actually higher when I publish the letter.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  44. Re:Did you cheer when Dems forced Obamacare throug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said. This country of limp dicks have bent over and taken it from Emperor Obama for years without question. They have no right to complain now.

  45. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nah, his verdict was probably given to him by the NSA shortly after realizing exactly how much internet monitoring they do.

    This, or perhaps the judge in question was just too much of a coward to rule against a government organization that could destroy his entire life.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  46. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by kheldan · · Score: 1

    What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?

    Frankly? I'd take the shortest possible route to the closest foreign embassy of either Russia, or China, or some other large country that is not an ally of the United States, and present them with it, because at that moment in time it would become obvious that even the illusion of the U.S. Constitution meaning a goddamned thing would be gone, so there would be no reason to defend it anymore.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  47. Judge should really check things... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    ...before making analogies. A trillion grains of sand is about 150 regular dump trucks' worth.

    1. Re:Judge should really check things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which can still be a tiny amount on a decent sized beach beach.
      Assume each truck is 10m x 10m x 10m, that's 1000m^3 per truck or 150000m^3 total.

      Now you're looking at probably 50m+ of sand from the grass/concrete/stones to the furthest most people will be swimming (I've seen some much further when the tide is out).
      The sand can easily be 1m+ deep.
      So that'd only require a 3km long beach to use up the 150 dump trucks. And that's assuming huge trucks, I'd guess 5x5x5 would be closer, meaning a 375m long beach. Tiny.

    2. Re:Judge should really check things... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I RTFA I knew that somewhere in these pages we would eventually be talking about dump trucks of sand & how many square meters of sand is in so much "beach" and how deep that beach typically is and so on.

      The reply should have been,"Mr. Judge if you throw a trillion grains of sand in my face or a handful, the result is the same - you fought dirty."

  48. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    You obviously don't read many legal rulings if you think this is outside the norm.

  49. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KGIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think the NSA can just hand a judge a NSL. I suspect they went with the monkey wrench approach or the black mail approach.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  50. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by KGIII · · Score: 1

    What you did there, I see it.

    And I am greatly amused. You have shares in an aluminum mine, perhaps?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  51. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You say that, but would you really? I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun but I've yet to face that so I can only hope I'd not chicken out and piss myself if it happens. In fact, I was in a single firefight while enlisted and I was scared shitless (suppressive fire only). I was all gung-ho about it before hand. When the situation happened, I'd have run the fuck away had it not been for the fact that the job needed doing and my brethren's lives were at stake. (If you think the enlisted fight for you, you are mistaken. But, I digress.)

    So, would you? I know you think you would. I know you can claim you would. I know I say the same. But, would I? I'd like to think I would. Hell, I've got a few bucks - I can fight the case. But, would I? I dunno, really. I'd like to think so, but maybe not. I've also got a lot to lose and, to be honest, I don't really like you that much. (Not you personally, but you get the idea.)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  52. kinda tricky, legally. Should be criminal charges by raymorris · · Score: 0

    I don't like the outcome. I'd much prefer the people responsible be convicted of criminal charges.

    However, consider this. It's widely believed that Johhny siphons gas out of people's cars. He does that a lot. He probably stole gas out of your car. I sue him. I don't know if -anyone- stole gas of my car, much less if Johnny did. Why should he have to pay ME? Shouldn't he have to pay back the people he stole from? And perhaps be prosecuted for theft?

    This is a well-established and very reasonable legal principle. To sue someone for damages, you have to show that they harmed -you-. Just because they're a bad guy doesn't mean they can be sued by any random person who decides to sue them.

    Given that reasonable bit of law, this case is a bit difficult. Wikipedia doesn't know if the NSA did anything to them. The NSA are bad guys and should go to jail, but it's questionable what Wikimedia has to do with it.

    e.

  53. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Bahamut_Omega · · Score: 1

    One has to wonder how many delicious details can be said about the ego of said soul. Knowing that the Justice likely has a soft spot for fraud could be reason to see him falling to a so called "Act of God".

    Likely wouldn't be surprised if somehow Anonymous decided to call themselves in play and release the judge's personal details.

  54. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by ls671 · · Score: 1

    That's why they never write such letters duh. It would be like incriminating themselves. Everything is done verbally and sometimes the person who receives the message doesn't even know the identity of the person who delivers it.

    Now, try to prove you received the message; "Some guy told me that...". Worse case, when you know the identity of the person, it is his words against yours, there again, not much chances.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  55. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?

    Depends on who it is.

  56. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got an NSL telling me to tell you to shut the fuck up, jackass. So shut the fuck up, jackass.

  57. Decision for indecision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The judge punted. He decided not to decide. He didn't decide against the plaintiffs.

    JJ

  58. Was Obamacare a problem when it was a GOP idea? by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Insightful

    A market-based "solution" to health care has been a GOP idea since Republicans first proposed it in '92, as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This results in awkward questions for partisan tribalists on both sides of the aisle:

    • Republicans, if Obamacare is the worst thing since Satan, did y'alls vote for Clinton in '92 and '96 when Obamacare was pushed by Herbert Walker Bush and then Robert Dole?
    • Democrats, if Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why weren't you all out campaigning for Mitt Romney over Obama in the 2008 election, since Romney was the first executive to sign an Obamacare-type plan into law?

    Do you think Hillary's private email server is not a HUGE deal?

    Yes, yes I do. Did you think it was a BFD when Karl Rove was also hiding communications behind private email servers, when it was "their guys" in office?

    Does the way the IRS politicized it's work was no big deal?

    They didn't, you brain dead partisan tribalist, you. Both liberal and conservative groups were scrutinized by the IRS, and the only one to actually be denied tax-exempt status was a liberal one.

    Why don't you move out to a deserted island, along with the Obamabots and Hillbots, and fight out your double-standards and hypocrisy to leave the rest of us alone, eh?

    1. Re:Was Obamacare a problem when it was a GOP idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was Obamacare a problem when it was a GOP idea?

      Nice strawman that has NOTHING to do with the way Democrats rammed Obamacare through after they lost their 60-vote supermajority in the Senate.

      Remember "deem it passed"? And the use of budget reconciliation to pass a "budget" bill that didn't originate in the House, as Constitutionally-required?

      But hey, as long as you got what you wanted, right? Who cares about the legal process when all you give a damn about is the results, right?

      So you have NO RIGHT TO BITCH WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IGNORES THE LAW IN A WAY YOU DON'T LIKE.

      Hey, you might one day learn why abuses of power like Hillary!'s private email server or the IRS politicization are EXACTLY why we have an overweening government that spies on its own citizens.

      Idiots like YOU like it when you get results you want. So you let the government get huge so it can "solve problems". While having some pie-in-the-sky belief that the government will stop "solving problems" when YOU want it to. Of course, that's AFTER you've ceded enough power to that government THAT IT NO LONGER MATTERS WHAT YOU WANT.

      So yeah, let's put the government that gives us the NSA and the TSA direct control of all healthcare - 1/6 of the US economy.

      And you whinge about the NSA violating your privacy. But you want to give that same government MORE power.

      You are a moron.

    2. Re:Was Obamacare a problem when it was a GOP idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single person proposed a mandate as part of a "what-if" paper from a think tank. That's hardly a "Republican idea" - especially when Republicans soundly voted against the mandate during the Clintoncare failure.

      The IRS targeted conservative groups, strictly because of their name, at a ratio of over 100:1 compared to liberal groups. Those liberal groups that received extra scrutiny were still either granted or denied within months of their application, while conservative groups were harassed and put on hold for YEARS. Not only that, their personal information was illegally sent to the FBI because some IRS officials were "suspicious".

      Remember, the IRS scandal started when Lois Lerner ADMITTED, at a press conference, that the IRS had inappropriately targeted conservative groups. She said it herself. She just blamed it all on one local office - that's the only difference.

  59. False, they demanded Lavabits Crypto keys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > "A NSL can't ask you to provide the content of someone's data"

    That's false, they've done two expansive things:

    In some cases. they've asked for a box on the network. In essence they've replaced "give us transactional records" for "trust us to only look at what we're legally allowed to look at for the subject we're legally allowed to search". I recall these boxes were run by the NSA who was keeping all the data, filtering it for the FBI, then handing the legal bit back to the FBI.

    And with Lavabit they demanded the crypto keys which would have also permitted content analysis on a "trust us" basis:
    http://www.wired.com/2013/10/lavabit_unsealed?ref=cm

    The law sets limits, and they conspire to hide the data collecting mechanism in the NSA (out of reach of the courts due to national security), while keeping the legally limited portion within the FBI.

    1. Re:False, they demanded Lavabits Crypto keys by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      You're talking about a FISA court order, not a NSL. To request data like that they do need a court-issued warrant, the problem is the court is the FISC which operates in secret and with questionable oversight.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  60. Dismissed Due to Standing, Again by mentil · · Score: 1

    Proving standing when one is subject to a secret procedure is akin to proving one's innocence: it may be impossible unless the guilty party steps forward and admits guilt. What the judges SHOULD do is modify the rules on determining standing, so that if it regards a secret procedure, the judge does his own discovery, and examines the classified information on his own, in order to determine if the plaintiff has standing. Judges already privately examine classified information in other contexts, so it shouldn't be unreasonable. Maybe get FISC involved if necessary.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  61. One trillion by mbone · · Score: 1

    A grain of sand might be 1 mm^3, so 10^12 is 1000 m^3, or maybe 3 x 10^6 kg or 3000 tons worth. I would like to see that idiot judge move that amount, say from one end of his courtroom to another. Ideally, he would do that every working day for the rest of his time on the bench; that might teach him the value of a trillion grains of sand.

    Incidentally, 10^12 grains of sand would cover a 10 m x 1 km beach 10 cm deep - sounds like a pretty nice beach to me,

    1. Re:One trillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incidentally, 10^12 grains of sand would cover a 10 m x 1 km beach 10 cm deep - sounds like a pretty nice beach to me,

      Incidentally, if a beach were only 10 cm deep and 10 m in from the low water line, it'd wash away very quickly.

  62. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    First, a NSL can't demand that. Secondly, it couldn't demand it of a judge.

    NSL's are basically for demanding evidence in your possession, or you could have provide access to, and not disclosing it. They aren't just a blank letter they can write anything they want in it.

  63. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KingMotley · · Score: 1, Interesting

    But that is sort of the point. The prosecution failed to provide enough evidence of their case before the judge. That's their job, and they didn't provide enough facts for him to make a (correct) ruling. Not the judge's fault that they failed to provide a reference of how much their traffic is.

  64. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And have you ever defended the US Constitution? And the only reason you should head on over to the Russian or Chinese embassies is to get yourself a visa so you can get out from underneath the oppression being foisted upon yourself in the US. Filing a law suite against the NSA and claiming they are intercepting every form of electronic traffic in existence will actually require proof but that is not why this particular lawsuit was filed. It was filed to support a particular political viewpoint and not to protect anyone's rights. For a lawsuit of this type to succeed requires not only proving that the NSA is intercepting everyone's data it will also require proving someone was actually harmed. And so far neither one of these 2 criteria have been met. The court system is not going to allow a fishing expedition focused on areas of national security unless there is a specific charge and a preponderance of evidence detailing harm.

  65. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by kheldan · · Score: 1

    I defend the U.S. Constitution every single time I exercise my right to vote in this country, sign petitions to right wrongs or effect change, join in a peaceful public protest, write or call a member of congress to voice my opinions or concerns, or for that matter call or write POTUS directly -- all of which I have, at one point or another, actually done. For that matter I'm defending the U.S. Constitution right here and now, by exercising my First Amendment Right to freedom of speech. What have you done, other than shoot your mouth off as an anonymous coward on a gods-be-damned Internet discussion forum? Rhetorical question, I'm pretty sure you've done Jack and Shit, in that order. You do not impress me one bit.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  66. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

    . . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter.

    The first rule of National Security Letter club is...

  67. We're currently at Juror's box... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this judge not know what the next step is?

  68. Re: - fake opposition jew fraud - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get help. Seriously. And fast.

  69. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.

    TO have the verdict in mind , that moron judge has to have a brain in his head.
    One trillion dollars .. patch of beach sand !!

    _______________________________
    Resistance is futile

  70. Coercion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems to me there's a judge who did something naughty the NSA knows about...

  71. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    And Congress is ever so diligent in making sure they are following the law, because it's their job and they take it very seriously.

    60 killed in embassies under Bush, not a single investigation. 4 dead under Obama's administration, and one of the longest and most expensive investigations in Congressional history. They are too busy crucifying Clinton (either one will do) to do anything useful. And yes, I know you were being iconic/sarcastic.

  72. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    But it is the judge's fault. He should know the value, and if not, one of his many unpaid interns would look it up for him. It's not like it's a secret. The judge knows the "value" of a trillion dollars, and a trillion grains of sand, so he should teach himself the value of the subject he's ruling on. That's the judge's failing, though it would have helped if the lawyer had given some manner of comparison, though he, like us, may have assumed the judge has heard of one of the top 10 sites on the planet. Because talking to a judge like he's an idiot usually does more to harm your case than help it.

  73. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    No, it's abject stupidity on the part of the judge. Judges are supposed to be smart.

    How many requests: 1e12
    How many humans in the world: 1e10

    That's an average of 100 per person. We can fuzz the figures by a few orders of magnitude by making assumptions about what proportion of people visit wikipedia.

    The "grains of sand" argument only makes sense if there are even vaguely the same order of magnitude of humans as grains of sand. The judge was therefore being intentionally obtuse which is not the role of judges or is in fact very dim which is really not a good thing.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  74. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

    Seems a bit of a contradiction to call someone a coward for not wanting their life ruined.

  75. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    What if you received a National Security Letter instructing you to kill somebody . . . what would you do . . . ?

    Don't kill them. National Security Letter? What National Security Letter?

  76. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I mean, I say I'd take a bullet for a nun ..."

    That you would die to protect somebody with delusions is beyond me.

  77. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    ""Some guy told me that...". Worse case, when you know the identity of the person, it is his words against yours, there again, not much chances."

    Not 'some guy'! You have to say: Some bearded guy in the sky...

  78. Application of de minimis principal? by swb · · Score: 1

    This sounds like an application of a de minimis principal -- arguing that the scale of Wikimedia's traffic isn't large enough to give it standing.

    I seem to remember learning this phrase in college in a political science class about some guy who sued the government to get some kind of information on defense appropriations, but was rejected because his individual contribution was so small that it essentially didn't matter.

  79. On his lawn by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    No, we should just have a trillion grains delivered to his house.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  80. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never heard of a letter of markey?

  81. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    There is only one way to find out, isn't there?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  82. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Well if it's done verbally how can THEY prove they did it and enforce it against you then?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  83. Using fact vs. naysayers is confrontational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I just defend myself with facts + truth & I do it extremely well. So well, my naysayers get crushed by it.

    * :)

    (There's a difference you know between being "confrontational" starting up with others first AND being a worm that just "takes it"...)

    Oddest part is YOU seem to understand what I've written to you well enough despite your 'critique' now...

    (Why's that?)

    APK

    P.S.=> As far as my writing style and what you said? Hey - look: I can put you away (& I like you too) easily with 100's of upmods of my posts that say otherwise vs. purely arbitrary bullshit, EASILY - want proof of them? Just ask - THAT is EXACTLY how I put away fools giving me guff, with concrete, undeniable & verifiable fact - every time... apk

    1. Re:Using fact vs. naysayers is confrontational? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Hey - look: I can put you away (& I like you too) easily with 100's of upmods of my posts that say otherwise vs. purely arbitrary bullshit, EASILY - want proof of them? Just ask - THAT is EXACTLY how I put away fools giving me guff, with concrete, undeniable & verifiable fact - every time... apk

      There's an example of what I mean. I'd call that confrontational. You can call it what you want. It won't fly on Wikipedia, they'll get grouchy. Also, Wikipedia doesn't do "PS" and the likes. However, I'm pretty sure you know that was mild banter for humor sake. As for moderation? I don't even use my mod points. Who am I to judge?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  84. Sand eh? by CitizenJohnJohn · · Score: 2

    Someone should ask the judge if he'd be happy to have a trillion grains of sand dropped on him.

    Assuming spherical sand grains 1mm across with a density of 2,2g/cm^2, I make that over 1,100 tonnes of sand.

    1. Re:Sand eh? by Legal.Troll · · Score: 1

      Yep, a very small patch of beach, just like the judge said; were you hoping to make some kind of point or do you just like talking about random figures and their total lack of clear significance to any subject being discussed?

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  85. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    That wasn't even the reason why it was thrown out. Even if it was, the very nature of the subject means that the prosecution cannot present the evidence. That's the point of the whole lawsuit, that the secrecy around that shit. If that had been the reason you can as well toss the justice system as a defense against unlawful government snooping because the whole point is that they do it in secrecy without any warrant or oversight.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  86. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, not at all. No contradiction at all.

    Judge was afraid of a bad thing happening, avoids taking a stand due to said fear.

    A coward is a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.

    Therefore, if the accusation that the judge threw the case to avoid a dangerous or unpleasant situation is true, then by definition the judge is a coward.

  87. HAD TO DO IT KGIII - you asked for it... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "if your edits are anything like your Slashdot posts" - y KGIII (973947) on Saturday October 24, 2015 @10:31PM (#50795795)

    See subject, that quote from you, & ~ 243++ upmods of my posts & tell us that again -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

    * I have 100's MORE since then - Want those too? Ask...

    APK

    P.S.=> You can say I am "confrontational" but I defend myself perfectly with verifiable fact. You can say I don't write well, but LITERALLY 100's of my posts say otherwise vs. PURELY ARBITRARY BULLSHIT FROM YOU that's outnumbered by MILES with contrary opinions vs. yours... so, so much for you on that note!

    Lastly - if more people used Linux on the desktop, & IF I still used Linux? I'd port to it - however, between servers + pc desktops combined, Windows has 94++% of the market last I checked (about a year or two ago) - This exemplifies WHY Linux couldn't "win" on the desktop & had to pursue smartphones (& it's used there for 1 real reason only - it lowers smartphone handset costs per unit since it has no licensing costs - & that only) - apps aren't as plentiful for it - it's WHY most folks don't stick by it, since it's not used as much in the environs noted AND it lacks critical apps users not only WANT, but NEED... apk

    1. Re:HAD TO DO IT KGIII - you asked for it... apk by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes I did ask for it. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  88. Re:Did you cheer when Dems forced Obamacare throug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think Hillary's private email server is not a HUGE deal?

    Anyone who did not expect that is a fool, Obama's first action when he took office was to terminate the investigation against George W Bush for doing the exact same thing, only in his case there was a law he directly violated whereas with Hillary we need to prove she willfully and knowingly sent top secret information to an insecure server.. No one who matters cares about Hillary's email because they know it will damage their own causes. Put Bush in a federal prison and then we can try prosecuting Hillary (which will fail since the proof necessary will be far higher for her)

  89. No strange reasoning here by Legal.Troll · · Score: 1

    If you file a legal brief that says "this number is really, really big and significant, trust us!" -- expect the court to laugh. Foreign lawyers accustomed to an inquisitorial system, perhaps? If so, better to do some homework next time.

    --
    "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  90. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Legal.Troll · · Score: 1

    Not a single person in this thread knows what he's talking about. Welcome to the new Slashdot, gents... you'll fit right in.

    --
    "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  91. Guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...this was a ruling on standing alone....

  92. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by kmoser · · Score: 1

    . . . so the judge gets delivered a National Security Letter. The first thing, that is very clearly stated in the letter, is that he is not allowed to talk about the National Security Letter. Then the letter instructs him how to rule on the case.

    Any judge with half a brain would recuse themselves from the case.

  93. Re: - jew troll distraction - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You need help.

  94. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    Really? Sounds like this judge had his/her verdict in mind before anyone stepped into the courtroom.

    Another notch in the anti-democracy belt.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  95. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I smell pay-off here...

  96. Guilty until innocent by Bengie · · Score: 2

    I think the government should be guilty until proven innocent.

  97. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Which one of us is going to dress up in a suit, fake a letter, and deliver it to the other one while pretending to be the NSA?

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  98. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KGIII · · Score: 1

    Some of us are human enough to be willing to protect those who are unable to protect themselves. Some of us accept that we're a part of society and didn't make it on our own. Some of us are willing to accept risks on behalf of those who can not or will not. It's called, "doing the ethical thing." You may have fewer ethics and, well, that's okay. Someday, when you're in the ditch and I offer you a hand up - maybe you'll understand the idea.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  99. Re:- fake opposition jew fraud - by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    And you forget just how vile neo-Nazi vitriol can become.. and then ..

    Seriously your speech patterns indicate severe mental illness. You are subject to severe delusions it just happens that in this case that they centre on the 'Jewish conspiracy' fallacy.. The first stage to getting help is accepting that everything you said was rubbish. And remember in the heart of madness your instincts almost always betray you - every time, that feeling of absolute certainty is the greatest lie of all and you are telling it to yourself... Get help.

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  100. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by rastos1 · · Score: 2

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair

  101. jew troll distraction bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The facts and Links are clear and clearly and beat the shit out of your centuries of scum jew lies. You and your JEW tribe are behind the fake 'kkk' and 'neo nazi' bs, and the 'hate speech' bs to shut down whites trying to stop the immigration assault and stop people from exposing your jew race and their mass robbing and murder schemes. It was YOU scum who brought the slaves here as Clearly proven by your Own records as shown by the walter white refs in my first post. As for the kkk, that was started by a small group to keep blacks from raping and robbing their families, some scum blacks back then too stupid to realize it was YOU who brought and owned most of the slaves so when they were initially 'freed' some went about attacking random whites. Once the kkk put down the scum that were attacking, the kkk basically went away until decades later You Jews made up a bogus 'kkk' to keep division stokedd. Your jew fraud fake 'neo nazi' shit I already beat the crap out with the LINKS in my previous posts, here the facts on your bogus 'kkk'.
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Jews_and_KKK.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/81showdown_at_jena_louisiana.htm
    And of course this already in first post though to slam it in your Face again-
    http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-USA.php
    Your bullshit fake 'neo nazis'
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Coure_d_Arlene.htm

    Of course scum jews don't like the Facts. Millions of jews right now doing everything possible to lie, distract, bullshit so idiots stay incubating in your fraud mass distractions until your virus hits so you take the rest of all property and have tens of millions more children to rape and butcher. You don't want others to realize your assaults and mass murder Chemtrails or make tribes to put you down before you kill them.
    If Anyone points a gun at someone else, they get shot. That is nature. bullshit fraud jew 'laws' make no difference. Your 'self defense' bogus 'law' you threw in just enough to keep dupes following other bogus 'law', example, your sht 'laws' claims 'police' can point a gun at you and you can't point back, just one example of obvious bullshit scum jew fraud of 'law'. Their bogus 'law' that if someone assaults or tries to kill you but if they miss you can't shoot them in the back if they're 'running away' 'disengage', is obvious bullshit. That so scum are free to try to kill you or someone else again, so scum are rewarded, or if they get 'caught' then idiots pay your fraud 'courts' and millions for 'jail' for a scum that would otherwise be done with a single bullet. Your 'laws' are a joke made to serve you and your police state and fraud 'courts' fraud 'prisons' while everyone pays until dupes including police are killed by your virus.

    The scum jews do every to keep others separated, men, women, races, religions, mass immigration, so when you decide to use your fraud 'police' to kill good people, your frauds are in a gang, but others don't gang up to stop them, or you. Now, idiots better get off their asses and make tribes, to stop your scum chemtrail ASSAULT and hundreds of other assaults. Everyone is in Fact free to do and better do Everything to stop you and all your co-parasite scum and your spraying and butcher plans. Already nano chipped, now virus for some, slavery for others, until the next race cull and next.
    Fck off chemtrail scum pedo jew.

  102. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scum jew slobber distraction. The 'need help' bs. your fraud 'psych' industry, setting yourselves up as bogus 'authoritarian' throguh your fraud 'kolleges', 'freud' a proven pedo incest scum, your bogus 'skools' fraud made up to position yourselves and brainwash morons. They will either open their eyes and get off their asses and stop you or die. My other post below with more links further shows your bs for what it is though none needed, my first post is total enough.

    Fck off 'federal reserve' 'wel fare' 'wars' 'bailouts' mass immigration, Chemtrail pedo scum jew.
     

  103. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by pupsocket · · Score: 2

    Not a single person in this thread knows what he's talking about. Welcome to the new Slashdot, gents... you'll fit right in.

    No one has written enough yet for us to discern. Only basic reactions are posted.

    The one post we can state was written by someone insufficiently informed is yours.

  104. fake opposition- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'snowden' is bogus, he's racial Jew , all the fake 'whistleblowers' jew psy ops bs so dupes continue 'following' jew fake 'groups' or cling at bogus 'law' made up by jews so jews are free to rob and kill while idiots follow 'law' or expect phony papers to 'save' them. The jew 'government' a fraud from the start, the jews do the assaults, set up fake 'groups' to 'lead the opposition' so idiots don't make their own groups and stop the jews themselves.

    - most posts you see including below are computer generated or jew trolls.

    -more info and many links in 'jew' posts above. click show all comments and slide bar over

    1. Re:fake opposition- by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I would post "Racist much?", but that doesn't really capture your stupidity. I presume that's why you post as AC as well.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  105. fraud laws- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fake opposition theater, fraud 'law' fraud 'media' fraud 'govt' a jew scheme from the start. Idiots 'go along'. It should be obvious 'orders' to 'kill' is fraud. One man claiming bogus paper 'law' to kill another is fraud. Natural law is the only law. Dupes fail to make tribes to stop the jew tribe, their fraud 'govt' fraud 'orders' fraud 'military' fraud 'federal reserve', fraud 'wars'. Now they are spraying us with nano chips, chemtrails. more above in 'jew' posts. click to show all comments, slide bar over.

    1. Re:fraud laws- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also post two above, 'freedom democracy' is spin bullshit. 'democracy' is Slavery to parasites who 'vote' for more jew fraud 'government'. 'republic' is also bullshit. Other men telling you what to do, extorting 'tax' to get weapons to kill you with. more in 'jew' posts on thread.

  106. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you in America? Then tyranny is what you already have... if you don't realise that, then you are already swallowing the lies. For example - how can it be that the illegal invasion of Iraq based on the the baseless claims of WOMDs did not have any negative outcomes for America or its leaders? Surely invading a non-combative, sovereign country based on a false premise and killing a few hundred thousand people is a war crime? Far from paying any remunerations or its leaders standing trail in the Hague, America was brazen enough to steal all Iraq's gold reserves before they left!! Then look at Guantanamo Bay - how does decade-long, trial-less (and crime-less) incarceration fit with the "land of the free" morals that America espouses. America (and the 51st state - Israel) ARE the world's great terrorists and, until the American populous wake up, they will continue to terrorise the world unchecked.

  107. Re:- fake opposition jew fraud - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the obsession with links "beating the shit out of you", I'm guessing it's just APK on one of his really good days.

  108. jew troll bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you don't like the links because the DO beat the shit out of your mass of lies, show your mass murder history, the the fact your scum tribe is behind the fraud 'govt', fraud 'federal reserve' fraud 'wars' fraud 'holocaust' bs, mass immigration, all of it and the fact we're being sprayed by your scum tribe and the facts behind your 'wireless' 'smart' grid' bs. Your bs distraction makes no difference.

    - others, see other posts, give links to others, don't waste time, time is short -

    1. Re:jew troll bs- by Maritz · · Score: 1

      If your goal is to get people to think the same way as you, you should try to be coherent at a bare minimum. You've fucking failed miserably at that. I suspect the reason for this is that you're fucked in the head.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    2. Re: jew troll bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fart in your general direction.

  109. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought these ranting reminded me of something. Now, I remember this and this! As the others have said, you need some serious help!

  110. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by bane2571 · · Score: 1

    Strangely he doesn't appear to know the value of a trillion grains of sand. Really, go dump 11000 (metric) tonnes of sand on miami beach and see if no one notices the change.
    ,
    It's really weird, the US court system. You can be hit for 1000s of instances of copyright violation for a single bit torrent file but trillions of individual transactions don't count as "large"

  111. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by ls671 · · Score: 1

    They don't enforce it directly. They will get you for something else or frame you for something else or use connections to ruin your career.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  112. jew pedo- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still slobbering jew bullshit to distract. Your idiot 'wikipedia' is jew bullshit disinfo. Your distraction only shows you have nothing but bs to cover up your scheming mass murdering child butchering tribe.
    Fck off pedo.

    --------

    - others, also go to this thread, more links
    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/10/23/2140252/affordable-care-act-exchanges-fail-to-detect-counterfeit-documentation

    and add these to them also -

    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Jews_and_KKK.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Coure_d_Arlene.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/87another_kosher_hoax.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/c.anada_and_gun_control.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/port_arthur_massacre.htm
    http://thezog.info/who-is-behind-gun-control/

    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/hu.gh_hefner.htm
    truthology.org.au/index.php/posts/357-the-perverted-walt-disney-empire - racial jew perverting children for generations, idiots let them, also behind all porno smut scum so idiot men are distracted, also behind 'feminism' and idiot female 'singo mommy' bs to break down family tribes, they divide others so jews are the only tribe.
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/85evils_of_feminism.htm

    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Bl.ood_or_cannibal.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/marc_dutroux.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/811Memphis_three_ritual_murder.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Grimes.htm
    they kill the few who try to stop them, because you sit on your ass. chemtrail virus. kills by race, and age, they will keep your kids under twelve/thirteen for torture. You, your breeders, their breeders, all sat on your asses. You let them kill in fraud 'wars'. Now it will be you.
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/haut_de_la_garenne_home_in_st_ma.htm
    2006 - of course they are doing it here also. hundreds of thousands of 'missing' kids every year. jews own all the giant factory 'farms'. also 'kosher' 'slaughterhouses'.
    idiots ignore the parasite swarms, immigrants mass breeding, jew destruction from every angle, child rape and butchers.
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/84virgin_killer_%20wife_lured_Michel%20Fourniret.htm
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial/Sayanim.htm - millions in the scum tribe
    http://67.225.133.110/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Hate_Hoax_summary.htm

    *go to other thread, get other links also, copy link pages to Disk, do it Now. jud inc pages, right click images, copy paste text below each, don't waste time clicking links on the pages, these chosen from masses of others, the collection is mass enough, just get it done for backup, a lot being wiped off the web. There is no time, copy this to re read, give links to others, and get Off the web, meet real people, postal mail to those you know, tell them they're responsible to pass it on, put links on notes, hand out to others, make tribes, stop the jews, get rid of bogus jew 'government' 'states', 'government' is suicide, 'democracy' is slavery to parasites, the weapons and land is yours take it back before they kill you, you're being sprayed, make tribes, no one will do it for you -

  113. Re:- fake opposition jew fraud - by lucien86 · · Score: 1

    Sadly your probably right... Sigh..

    --
    Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  114. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by KingMotley · · Score: 1

    Humans aren't likely making the most requests, but the prosecutors should have made an attempt to show the magnitude.

  115. - weak - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Weak 'sigh' makes no difference. The facts are the jews are spraying everyone, have implanted nano chips in everyone but jews who are not affected, that's the point of their staying racially apart, while yelling 'racist' at everyone else to cover up. Those who fail to get off their asses will die -

    -other info links in posts above, copy to re read, give links to others, make your own tribes and stop them or they will kill you, the nano chips for control of those leftover from virus, virus kills by race and age, adults but not children, they will take the children, they rape and butcher them by the hundreds of thousands every year while idiots sit for mass more scum immgirants, mass parasite 'welfare' fraud 'wars', now you're being Sprayed. Get off your ass, make your own tribes and stop them or die. There is no 'going along' you will be killed by virus in the chemtrails, there is no 'hiding' from sprayed nano virus - see jew posts above -

    1. Re: - weak - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An example of "you can't fix stupid" right there.

  116. but... not all of us are untrained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the NSA knows how awesome i am at Call of Doody.

    they know how many hours of YouTube survivalist training i have.

    they've read all of my posts on assassinchan and even the secret murder forum that requires an invite.

    I can't wait for my first NSL assignment, then i'll get my double-0

    1. Re:but... not all of us are untrained by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's amazing what lengths some people would go to just to get some toilet cleaner...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  117. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    post below 'but not all of' bs. scum jew say-nothing bs to distract from my posts. jews mass murdering chemtrails. see fraud laws post and jew posts further up.

  118. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got a NSL saying MOOOOOOOOOOO!

  119. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The invasion of Iraq was not illegal. America makes the laws. Might makes right.

  120. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot to add 'in my stupid, dumbass opinion'.

  121. Re:more jew bs- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're just a couple of 'hosts' file references from punching a hole through time with sheer batshit-crazy. Well done you.

  122. Re:- jew troll distraction - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK? Is that you? Please go back on your meds. The community would much rather hear about the awesomeness of the hosts file than this anti-Semitic stuff.

  123. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fighting the letter may leave my child unable to protect themselves, with no parents, or even possibly as THE primary target of the government in an effort to suppress my public objections. The issue isn't simply would I trade my life for the protection of innocent citizens, but would I trade my children, wife, and all those I love for the outside chance my objections would be heard by the mindless masses (innocent citizens) and result in anything to slow the advance of the overbearing government?
    Everyone who thinks about the current state of the US government and where it is headed can only come to two conclusions. It crushes the country and its people over time and erodes into the very thing it was created to counter. Or, the people rise up and overthrow the government. Neither of which fighting a letter such as discussed would impact, so in the end, it would be my loved ones paying the ultimate price for no net gain.
    -apk

  124. The international court should look into this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This judge should be up before a UN Tribunal for crimes against humanity for the way her tortured the hell out of that logic.

  125. Re: Lawyers failed at presentation by Legal.Troll · · Score: 1

    Are we both talking about the series of comments I directly replied to? If so, L2R.

    --
    "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
  126. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by tingentleman · · Score: 1

    I suspect this judge's search history might be judged by some as suspect (if it were ever to be released)

  127. scum jew - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 'jew' posts and links show your mass of scum lies, your scum schemes, your nano chip chemtrails assault your mass destruction and mass murder plan for this territory in addition to what you've already done and are doing still all over the middle east, ukraine and everywhere else thanks to idiots putting up with your fraud jew 'government'. If dupes don't get off their ass here, now, they're next, which is why you slobber bs distraction. I have no problem with actual semites like Palestinians. You scum ashkenazi jews are only part semite, you purposely bred with nordic whites to blend in and do your scum robbing child raping mass murder world takeover schemes. Your 'anti semite' slobber is worn out bullshit. Beside being a scum jew you're an idiot. Fuck off child raping child butchering mass thieving mass murdering nano chip chemtrails scum JEW.

    -----

    Otherss, do you GET IT yet. What the scum is doing is spitting in your face, these supremacist jews so arrogant they decide whatever slobber bs is enough to distract and stop you. If that's you the scum jew will be killing you soon, so you will get what you deserve. If that's not you, realize this is what the 'web' is, nearly all of it is their shit, bs 'media', comment trolls, all 'media'. You have the information, give links to others, and get Off the web. Stop looking for 'leaders' they will only be jew fronts. Make your own tribes, take back the weapons, be done with 'government' 'states' all of it. You're being SPRAYED. See jew posts above-

  128. jew scum- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still slobbering idiot scum jew. . Your scheming child raping child butchering fraud 'government' fraud 'wars' fraud 'federal reserve' fraud 'states' scum 'wel fare' mass immigration, nano chip chemtrails, all of those are facts. Your scum jew tribe will mass kill here now, if idiots continue to 'go along' to their suicide. Your ashkenazi jew race 'foxworthy' who you 'quote' is an idiot, as are you. Fuck off jew.

    Others - you are being SPRAYED by the millions in the scum jew tribe, every fraud in Every 'government' 'fed' 'states' 'city' are part of it. Get off your ass, see other jew posts, give links to others -

  129. the scum jew distraction- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My first post and others and mass of Links clearly beats the shit out of the mass of lies your scum jew tribe has slobbed out over the centuries and cranks out still every day in the build up to your final cull, here soon. You slobber idiot bs to distract, especially now with you scum chemtrail spraying mass murder scheme. Fuck off distraction scum jew.

    Others - you are being SPRAYED the millions in the scum jew tribe will live, you will die, those who don't, you've already been more than chipped, ipv6 is a weapon. The jew scum and co-frauds every fraud in Every 'government' 'fed' 'states' 'city' are part of it. Get off your ass, see other jew posts, give links to others -

  130. jew sht- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is all the scum jew has. Idiot distraction. Low scum 'fart' bs, idiot distraction. The scum jews actually Eat Shit. They literally eat it. They rape and butcher hundreds of thousands of children every year, the same time swarming in tens of millions of immigrant scum to parasite you and 'vote' for scum jew fraud 'government'.. They are a pile of scum, no more intelligent than this idiot, they made up the fake 'skools' and the 'minorities' shit, to label themselves fraud 'authority' positions, then uses each other's bs, 'scientists say' 'officials say' 'authorities say', All Bullshit. All of them no more than a scum jew moron who has Zero to refute the facts, so they default to toilet shit to distract as you See by the idiot scum jew post.

    You did not earn this information I and others sacrificed everything for. Your idiot breeders and their breeders ignored the massive scum jew tribe, now You are being SPRAYED. If you ignore, fail to inform to others, if you fail to fight to stop the scum jews, then you will die. Don't waste time. Time is short. No one is coming to 'save' you. Get off your ass, make your own tribes -

     

  131. slobbering jew scum - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scum jew idiot distraction.

    ---
    There are millions of these scum jews, all 'media' 'govt' the fake 'candidates' all jews or married to jews or work for the scum tribe, they do anything to distract especially now their scum plans are now aimed here, at you. You're being Sprayed, see other 'jew' posts, copy to re read, give links to others, time is short, make your own tribes -

  132. Re:Lawyers failed at presentation by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    Sounds more as if this is yet another judge who is clueless and still passes a verdict. OK, might be that the lawyers didn't educate the judge sufficiently.

  133. one trillion grains of sand are... by gafter · · Score: 1

    By my calculations about 10 million kilograms. Hardly a small patch of beach.