From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
Except that in such cases, the police are never disciplined for such "improper procedures" and thus the protections of the Constitution become mere cant. Prosecutors need police to provide the evidence to get convictions; if the prosecutors went after police on a regular basis for misconduct, the cops would soon stop doing much to help the prosecutors. And the police can't be trusted to investigate themselves, it will almost always be a whitewash or a slap on the wrist. The only means that guarantees that illegal evidence will not be used is to deny its use. That requires illegally obtained evidence to be suppressed.
With the usual IANAL disclaimer, while it may theoretically be possible for the SCOTUS to overrule a decision that is grounded in a *state* constitution,
No, they cannot. The Supreme Court has ruled that the highest court of a state is the final arbiter on the meaning of a state statute or the state constitution. If a state Supreme Court decides the state constitution gives more protection to citizens than the equivalent Federal constitution, or decides that a state law is unconstitutional on state Constitutional grounds, that is the end of the matter unless the provision of the state Constitution violates the Federal Constitution or a federal statute. So there still has to be a federal nexus.
The constitution does not say anything about attaching GPS devices to automobiles.
Actually, I think it does, it's called the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think clearly being "secure in their person" would mean not to have a tracking device attached to them or their "effects" such that it tells every place you have been, even where the police were not watching. Further, we can argue the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Might restrict what the specific states can do absent a grant of power from the people of that state.
Besides, it's criminal; was it a mistrial or an acquittal?
Uh, doesn't quite work that way. This was an appeal, which means technically the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not at question, only the legality or sufficiency of the evidence or the constitutionality of the process. If the process or the evidence is found to be inadequate or unconstitutional, then the court decides whether the error was such that the person might or might not have been convicted in the absence of the error in question.
Only in very limited circumstances does an appeals court actually decide to acquit a person, what usually happens is that the case is sent back to the trial court, either to change what was wrong if it's possible (such as correcting an improper sentence to what is permissible), or retrying the defendant if it is not. Only if all the evidence is inadmissible or if the defendant, by any analysis of the case, could not have been convicted, will the appellate court acquit the defendant.
Validity of the evidence and the potential for contamination of a trial depends on several factors. Let's say you're suspected of stealing a piano, the cops get a warrant to search for the piano, and a cop opens a drawer and finds marijuana, which they bring up at trial. The marijuana would be suppressed and so would a conviction for its possession because there's no reasonable basis for finding a piano in a drawer of a piece of furniture. This suppression of evidence for the marijuana would not, however, overturn the conviction for the stolen piano they found in your basement, because whether or not they found the marijuana, the jury could still reasonably have convicted for stealing the piano based on the evidence of finding the piano itself in your home. Now in other cases, contaminating you with illegal evidence might sway a jury and if it can't be said for certain that the illegal evidence was not a cause for the conviction, in such a case the court would most likely overturn the conviction and order a new trial.
That such a surrogate technological deployment [use of a GPS tracking device] is not — particularly when placed at the unsupervised discretion of agents of the state "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" (Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14 [1948]) — compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person's progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit's batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on.
— People v. Weaver, 2009 NY Slip Op 03762
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm
Someone suggested that it would be nice to see the text of the decision, so with nothing more than the name of the defendant that I got from the newspaper article - Scott Weaver - I went looking on the State of New York's website for where I could find a recent case for either State v. Weaver or People v. Weaver.
In about five minutes of clicking I found it on the decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals, People v. Scott C. Weaver:
To confirm it was the right case, I checked the first paragraph:
"LIPPMAN, Chief Judge:
In the early morning hours of December 21, 2005, a State Police Investigator crept [*2]underneath defendant's street-parked van and placed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device inside the bumper. The device remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the position of the van. This nonstop surveillance was conducted without a warrant.
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion. The small extracts I've seen so far basically amount to "I don't like giving the police such power", which, if it were the only legal basis of the opinion, would be the worst kind of legislating-from-the-bench, and not likely to survive an appeal. Surely in 20 pages of opinion, there was an actual legal basis given for their decision. One can hope?
The newspaper said the defendant's name was Scott Weaver. From this, if New York puts its appellate cases on-line (Virginia is one state that does), one could look up "State v. Weaver" or "People v. Weaver" (depending on how criminal cases are styled in New York) and see all the cases in 2009 that were decided with that header.
No, someone working for the cops is an agent of the cops, and gets some additional responsibilities.
My point, exactly. However, I'd go further: if I, as a private citizen, hire a PI to search somebody's home,
Stop right there. No legitimately licensed PI is seriously going to search someone's home for you unless they have reason to believe that you have the authority to permit them to do so. You'd have to have the keys and unlock the place, thus at worst it would be trespassing rather than B&E. And most likely YOU would be the one going to jail because he acted in good faith based on you having keys to the place. Hiring a PI to do a "Watergate" is going to be extremely expensive because he risks getting caught by the target who might beat him up, losing his license, maybe going to jail and perhaps even a felony conviction.
the evidence is still inadmissible, because without a warrant, the search constitutes Breaking and Entering, and removing evidence is Burglary.
Obviously. But a legitimate PI wouldn't have even conducted the search in the first place because you don't have any right or authority to permit him to do so.
"IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant."
Ah...but, a PI is NOT a police officer, he does not have the same rights/responsibilities....nor the power to arrest or charge you with a crime.
Incorrect. In every state, any person - including you or me - may arrest anyone for a misdemeanor or felony committed in their presence. It's called a citizen's arrest, and in fact, in some places if it's a misdemeanor and the citizen saw it but the police officer was not there, the citizen actually is required to make the arrest because the offender must be arrested by the person who saw the offense.
you need a warrant to track a person's private movements.
IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant.
I believe the context of the original poster you are quoting was, when he said "you" was referring to the police. Also, you're incorrect on this point and are making an apples and oranges comparison. A private investigator is a non-government individual who acts on the request of a private party. The PI is not a state actor, thus they do not need a warrant. Further, check out the comments in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Taintor which stated that if you're out on bail, the bondsman owns you, basically has you on a string and can reel you back any time they want, including breaking into your home on the sabbath to retrieve you, and require no paperwork other than the bond to do so; they do not have to have a warrant.
If you believe you have the capacity to finish your project, and it's a substantial amount of money above and beyond what this company is offering, you might want to consider declining their offer. The distinct possibility exists they might offer more. But don't forget most - something like more than 75% - of large software projects do not get completed.
Do not accept stock; insist on an all-cash deal. Too many people have been burned by stock deals; also it would almost certainly be restricted stock that you have to hold for a long time (12 to 18 months, and there will be restrictions on selling it). This will also determine if the company is serious or they're just bottom fishing for a cheap opportunity.
Do not accept a non-compete clause in any employment contract unless it provides for payment of 100% of your salary during the non-compete period. Programmers are way too valuable to accept handcuff conditions like this.
First, I think this so-called invention is not new and probably is obvious to any serious practitioner in the field
Second, I think it's invalid because of prior art: this sort of system sounds exactly like what Valve Software does with its Steam content delivery system, which is in use for Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2 Episode One and Half-Life 2 Episode Two.
He's ignoring the true purpose of a business card. It's to allow people to be able to find you again fast so they can do business with you. His point that he spends $4 on a business card tells me he wastes money, meaning I don't want to deal with him because I want the most bang for my buck, not someone who thinks the answer to business problems is to waste money on non-essentials.
I'll tell you the type of card people hold onto: full color cards with a photo. Those get you noticed, if they're nicely done, people hold onto them, and if you can fit it in a Rolodex then they can hang onto it and find you when they need what you're selling.
For four bucks he should be doing a brochure, not some oversized business card. Most of us have too much clutter, and it means that - as other/.'ers have stated, means his non-rolodexable business card will go file 13. It's an ego trip for him to create an expensive card, but don't forget, he's in public relations and those people are supposed to do things to get attention, that's their stock in trade. Now, I agree most business cards are crap because they're boring. But they're usually meant to be. You just want to provide your information; you dazzle with performance and getting the job done, not with sizzle and flash.
But people who do public relations or advertising, all they have is sizzle and flash, their objective is to get attention, and lots of it, so in his case the type of card he's doing probably works. For the vast majority of us in business, either his card is overkill or it might even backfire, because if you're spending that much on your advertising, are you providing a professional service. On the other hand, he's selling advertising so he's showing the customer how he can be over-the-top and really effective in an environment where what you need is lots of buzz.
For the vast majority of us, either boring or slightly better is reasonable and it should be able to be put in a Rolodex. Or, better yet, make your card as a refrigerator magnet. That you can do for about 25c. Do full color with something really nice looking like kittens, or puppies, or a sunset or, since he sells crowds, a huge crowd drawing, say, an image of the globe - not his "crap" face - on a laser or inkjet and you make something people will keep around.
One guy who sells real estate does a brochure where he shows the "big blue marble" image of earth. And then below it, is the line "this is what we sell" and his name and phone number. Probably costs at most $1 a copy, but it's the kind of thing that's so attractive that people will keep it on their coffee table, and thus you've kept your name where the customer will see it. That's what your business card - or whatever you use to make people notice you - is supposed to do.
So yes, it's sometimes possible for a true statement to be defamatory.
Do you have case law on this? Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true. Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it. I think that the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell would be instructive in this case. Hustler was sued because it ran a parody ad (marked as such) that said that Rev. Falwell admitted he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found for the magazine for libel (the ad was a parody so it was clear it wasn't him actually claiming what was said, therefore not libelous) but found for Falwell on emotional distress. The magazine appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no defamation because no person could possibly believe it was true, and merely having your feelings hurt is not adequate to be compensable damages absent actual libel. So if something which is false and insulting about someone that cannot possibly be believed as true cannot be defaming, then declaring saying something which is true to be actionable would appear to be madness.
How exactly is this a story? Microsoft Windows is so fragile that it's very easy to break it. Oh wait, you mean they broke glass windows! With Slashdot being primarily a tech-related site I was thinking of that "windows". (Using voice of Emily Latella) "Never mind."
But anyway, an entertainment program was doing a segment involving explosives where, as a result of an accident or miscalculation, the explosive force was too much and it caused unintended damage to outlying structures. As is the standard legal requirement when an organization uses or transports explosives, the company using them is considered automatically liable, that is, they are liable for any damage caused by their actions without regard to fault, even if they were prudent and took every precaution. This is the same standard that an employer has with respect to on-the-job injuries to its employees; that's why companies have to carry Worker's Compensation insurance (or be self-insured).
In these sort of situations (employers with respect to their employees, users and transporters of explosives) we presume these are or can be dangerous operations and those doing these things are required to include the potential cost of injuries as part of their overhead.
There was a movie, Blown Away with Tommy Lee Jones and Jeff Bridges, where they blew up a ship in Boston Harbor as part of the ending. The company announced this and stated that if anyone had damage to their house or building as a result they would pay for it.
So a company required to protect third-parties against damage went out and fixed the damage which they caused immediately. This is not newsworthy. They immediately fixed the damage they caused and acted responsibly. For that, we can say thank you for doing the right thing. Oh, wait, I suppose the fact that they had a bigger than expected explosion is newsworthy because it doesn't happen all that often.
Nowadays you have to properly structure yourself if you're going to operate any business, and it looks like they didn't. This is why we have corporations, so that those who invest in a corporation are not liable for its expenses.
I note that Microsoft licenses its operating systems through a Nevada subsidiary, which saves it millions it would have to pay to the state of Washington.
But you don't have to do it just for taxes, and it's cheap to do. It costs $50 (it was $25 a couple of years ago, that's when I got one) to set up a new corporation or L.L.C. in, say, Colorado and you can do it over the Internet in 10 minutes with a credit card; all you need is an address there and the corporation can be its own registered agent. It's $10 to renew it the next year; there's no excuse for not registering a new corporation or LLC for every aspect of your business
So now they have to sue the party that created the device which might be incorporated in one state, the marketer in a second, the trademark holder in a third, and so on. There is no one party with deep pockets, and you've got the advantage if you get sued, you just sell the assets to another corporation and maybe go bankrupt or fight for a while and drain the other side with legal bills, then if you want, let them get a judgment or default judgment against the first corporation (which will be a shell corporation with virtually no assets) and have to start the practice all over again playing "whack-a-mole" to try to find the responsible party.
Or my understanding is, using limited partnerships and LLCs, you can use something called a "Charge Order" such that the assets are held by one company, the income by another, and if you sue them, even if you win, first you can't get to the assets, two you can't get to the income, and three, the IRS will impute the income you didn't get to you, so if you get a judgment against them for, say, $50,000,000 that they don't pay because of the charge order the IRS considers it as if you got the $50,000,000 and taxes you on it! As a result you're worse off than if you'd never sued them!
She had to give someone as a reference so I told her to give my phone number at the office and a fake name I gave her so I would know what it was about. Not only that, but the name I had her give them was one I had registered with the state's fictitious name registration agency, so we weren't even doing anything the slightest bit either illegal or improper! As slimy as dead mackerel in the moonlight, but 100% legal.
Because once they find it, someone will notice the Giant Sucking Sound (as H. Ross Perot called it), look over and scream, "Oh God! It's a black hole! Run for your lives." Not that will do them any good, but...
There is a man by the name of Paul Robinson who is a famous soccer player in Europe. Except for the fact I think I'm probably ten years older than him, weigh 400 pounds and in a wheelchair, I sometimes wondered if I could just make people think I was him.
Page 14 of the bill specifically prohibits the State of Illinois from spending any money as long as Rod R. Blagojevich is still governor. I do not like this. First, it's unnecessary as he's already been impeached. Second, Personally, this sounds awfully like a "bill of Attainder" where someone is convicted by act of Congress. Further, it might violate some other Constitutional provisions. This sets a bad precedent, because if you allow this sort of thing it can be prostituted into any number of things, e.g. if some particular person is not convicted the state is denied funding.
Whether the guy did something wrong or not, allowing a statute to specifically require someone be in a disadvantaged position is a bad idea. Because first they'll use it on someone who supposedly is really bad because most people either won't care or will approve, then it gets used on other people as the skids have been greased to allow it.
And like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we won't even realize what has happened until maybe one of us gets targeted, e.g. Salman Rushdie being named in a death sentence Fatwa which while Iran has supposedly distanced itself, has done nothing to repudiate it and probably helped in the murders done under its order.
Since the site is marked 'fake' it clearly is a parody. There may be grounds to argue that references to his wife and child are unacceptable because they might not be public figures, but the guy he's parodying clearly is. His own lawyers in the letter have conceded he is a public figure. Thus the standard for defamation is much higher than with a private party. While I'm not a lawyer, based on supreme court decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, no reasonable person could believe this was from the guy or that what is being said was anything but parody and satire. They have to show that the material was known to be untrue and was posted for malice, or was done with reckless neglect for the truth, and that someone could believe it to be true.
Thus the claim of defamation and almost all of the claims they are making are on their face at best obviously incorrect as negligence, or quite possibly intentional lies.
Given this to be the case, his lawyers should know this, and their threats in their Cease & Desist letter may be intentional misinformation given by mail or communications system for the purpose of causing others to expend money or resources over reliance upon their misinformation. Thus the lawyers bluster and hyperbole may constitute mail and/or wire fraud in interstate commerce (it mentions it was both mailed and faxed) since either they knew that, based on current court decisions, that it was false, or should have known that it was. Thus their threat letter may, in and of itself, either give rise to a fraud claim, or might be grounds to have his lawyers prosecuted for mail and/or wire fraud.
I'm waiting for someone to someday nail some lawyers who make claims in C&D letters that they know to be false.
My understanding is that you can find rats almost anywhere; the population of rats in most urban areas is estimated to usually equal the human population. We don't really have ways to rat-proof the sewers and storm drains.
This is the most important part, but the next part is important too: KILL KILL KILL. Rats reproduce like crazy so killing the odd rat is not going to do it. Over-do it if you have to. How many bait stations does your exterminator put down? Tell him to put down ten times as many... better yet, hire a new exterminator. Bring out the heavy guns. Remember, nobody ever failed to eliminate a rat population by using too many traps and too much poison.
The Webcomic "Schlock Mercenary" has a fictional book titled "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates" in which one of the rules is:
37. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.'
And if it's from peanuts released by Peanut Corp. of America, that company that actually used the peanuts that fell on the floor, the mouse might be braving death just eating it, even if it wasn't in a trap!
When [rats] come across a foreign substance (a seed, a fruit, a piece of garbage, a nice shiny cable), they'll try a few bites of it. if it makes them sick, they throw it up and remember not to eat it again- apparently they have very good memory.
Rats can't vomit. That's why the poison Red Squill is favored by some people. It triggers the vomit reflex which helps if dogs or other friendlies eat it but since rats can't vomit, they die from the poison.
Slashdot Mirror
From the skimming I did of the summary it looks like the sentence was over turned because they didn't get a warrant for using GPS to track the guy. Should someone who committed a crime be let go because some did not follow procedures NO, should there be discipline for not using proper procedures absolutely. Improper procedures should not cause a case to be overturned unless of course it could be shown that the person was guilty only because of the improper procedures.
Except that in such cases, the police are never disciplined for such "improper procedures" and thus the protections of the Constitution become mere cant. Prosecutors need police to provide the evidence to get convictions; if the prosecutors went after police on a regular basis for misconduct, the cops would soon stop doing much to help the prosecutors. And the police can't be trusted to investigate themselves, it will almost always be a whitewash or a slap on the wrist. The only means that guarantees that illegal evidence will not be used is to deny its use. That requires illegally obtained evidence to be suppressed.
With the usual IANAL disclaimer, while it may theoretically be possible for the SCOTUS to overrule a decision that is grounded in a *state* constitution,
No, they cannot. The Supreme Court has ruled that the highest court of a state is the final arbiter on the meaning of a state statute or the state constitution. If a state Supreme Court decides the state constitution gives more protection to citizens than the equivalent Federal constitution, or decides that a state law is unconstitutional on state Constitutional grounds, that is the end of the matter unless the provision of the state Constitution violates the Federal Constitution or a federal statute. So there still has to be a federal nexus.
The constitution does not say anything about attaching GPS devices to automobiles.
Actually, I think it does, it's called the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think clearly being "secure in their person" would mean not to have a tracking device attached to them or their "effects" such that it tells every place you have been, even where the police were not watching. Further, we can argue the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Might restrict what the specific states can do absent a grant of power from the people of that state.
Besides, it's criminal; was it a mistrial or an acquittal?
Uh, doesn't quite work that way. This was an appeal, which means technically the guilt or innocence of the defendant is not at question, only the legality or sufficiency of the evidence or the constitutionality of the process. If the process or the evidence is found to be inadequate or unconstitutional, then the court decides whether the error was such that the person might or might not have been convicted in the absence of the error in question.
Only in very limited circumstances does an appeals court actually decide to acquit a person, what usually happens is that the case is sent back to the trial court, either to change what was wrong if it's possible (such as correcting an improper sentence to what is permissible), or retrying the defendant if it is not. Only if all the evidence is inadmissible or if the defendant, by any analysis of the case, could not have been convicted, will the appellate court acquit the defendant.
Validity of the evidence and the potential for contamination of a trial depends on several factors. Let's say you're suspected of stealing a piano, the cops get a warrant to search for the piano, and a cop opens a drawer and finds marijuana, which they bring up at trial. The marijuana would be suppressed and so would a conviction for its possession because there's no reasonable basis for finding a piano in a drawer of a piece of furniture. This suppression of evidence for the marijuana would not, however, overturn the conviction for the stolen piano they found in your basement, because whether or not they found the marijuana, the jury could still reasonably have convicted for stealing the piano based on the evidence of finding the piano itself in your home. Now in other cases, contaminating you with illegal evidence might sway a jury and if it can't be said for certain that the illegal evidence was not a cause for the conviction, in such a case the court would most likely overturn the conviction and order a new trial.
That such a surrogate technological deployment [use of a GPS tracking device] is not — particularly when placed at the unsupervised discretion of agents of the state "engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime" (Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14 [1948]) — compatible with any reasonable notion of personal privacy or ordered liberty would appear to us obvious. One need only consider what the police may learn, practically effortlessly, from planting a single device. The whole of a person's progress through the world, into both public and private spatial spheres, can be charted and recorded over lengthy periods possibly limited only by the need to change the transmitting unit's batteries. Disclosed in the data retrieved from the transmitting unit, nearly instantaneously with the press of a button on the highly portable receiving unit, will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on.
— People v. Weaver, 2009 NY Slip Op 03762 http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm
In about five minutes of clicking I found it on the decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals, People v. Scott C. Weaver:
To confirm it was the right case, I checked the first paragraph:
"LIPPMAN, Chief Judge:
In the early morning hours of December 21, 2005, a State Police Investigator crept [*2]underneath defendant's street-parked van and placed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device inside the bumper. The device remained in place for 65 days, constantly monitoring the position of the van. This nonstop surveillance was conducted without a warrant.
I'd like to see the full text of the opinion. The small extracts I've seen so far basically amount to "I don't like giving the police such power", which, if it were the only legal basis of the opinion, would be the worst kind of legislating-from-the-bench, and not likely to survive an appeal. Surely in 20 pages of opinion, there was an actual legal basis given for their decision. One can hope?
The newspaper said the defendant's name was Scott Weaver. From this, if New York puts its appellate cases on-line (Virginia is one state that does), one could look up "State v. Weaver" or "People v. Weaver" (depending on how criminal cases are styled in New York) and see all the cases in 2009 that were decided with that header.
I started with http://state.ny.us/ which translates to http://www.ny.gov/ . Right on the page is "New York State Unified Court System" Click that, then click on "How do I", click on "find a decision", clicked on "Court of Appeals", clicked on "May" and found People v. Scott C. Weaver, No. 53. The PDF and the Word Perfect document are available there at: http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.pdf and http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/may09/53opn09.wpd Indirectly I found out there is a website for the court, and somehow found the HTML version: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_03762.htm
No, someone working for the cops is an agent of the cops, and gets some additional responsibilities.
My point, exactly. However, I'd go further: if I, as a private citizen, hire a PI to search somebody's home,
Stop right there. No legitimately licensed PI is seriously going to search someone's home for you unless they have reason to believe that you have the authority to permit them to do so. You'd have to have the keys and unlock the place, thus at worst it would be trespassing rather than B&E. And most likely YOU would be the one going to jail because he acted in good faith based on you having keys to the place. Hiring a PI to do a "Watergate" is going to be extremely expensive because he risks getting caught by the target who might beat him up, losing his license, maybe going to jail and perhaps even a felony conviction.
the evidence is still inadmissible, because without a warrant, the search constitutes Breaking and Entering, and removing evidence is Burglary.
Obviously. But a legitimate PI wouldn't have even conducted the search in the first place because you don't have any right or authority to permit him to do so.
"IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant."
Ah...but, a PI is NOT a police officer, he does not have the same rights/responsibilities....nor the power to arrest or charge you with a crime.
Incorrect. In every state, any person - including you or me - may arrest anyone for a misdemeanor or felony committed in their presence. It's called a citizen's arrest, and in fact, in some places if it's a misdemeanor and the citizen saw it but the police officer was not there, the citizen actually is required to make the arrest because the offender must be arrested by the person who saw the offense.
you need a warrant to track a person's private movements.
IANAL, but I don't think that's right. If it were, no PI could tail a husband suspected of cheating on his wife because a PI couldn't get a warrant.
I believe the context of the original poster you are quoting was, when he said "you" was referring to the police. Also, you're incorrect on this point and are making an apples and oranges comparison. A private investigator is a non-government individual who acts on the request of a private party. The PI is not a state actor, thus they do not need a warrant. Further, check out the comments in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Taylor v. Taintor which stated that if you're out on bail, the bondsman owns you, basically has you on a string and can reel you back any time they want, including breaking into your home on the sabbath to retrieve you, and require no paperwork other than the bond to do so; they do not have to have a warrant.
If you believe you have the capacity to finish your project, and it's a substantial amount of money above and beyond what this company is offering, you might want to consider declining their offer. The distinct possibility exists they might offer more. But don't forget most - something like more than 75% - of large software projects do not get completed.
Do not accept stock; insist on an all-cash deal. Too many people have been burned by stock deals; also it would almost certainly be restricted stock that you have to hold for a long time (12 to 18 months, and there will be restrictions on selling it). This will also determine if the company is serious or they're just bottom fishing for a cheap opportunity.
Do not accept a non-compete clause in any employment contract unless it provides for payment of 100% of your salary during the non-compete period. Programmers are way too valuable to accept handcuff conditions like this.
First, I think this so-called invention is not new and probably is obvious to any serious practitioner in the field
Second, I think it's invalid because of prior art: this sort of system sounds exactly like what Valve Software does with its Steam content delivery system, which is in use for Half-Life 2, Half-Life 2 Episode One and Half-Life 2 Episode Two.
He's ignoring the true purpose of a business card. It's to allow people to be able to find you again fast so they can do business with you. His point that he spends $4 on a business card tells me he wastes money, meaning I don't want to deal with him because I want the most bang for my buck, not someone who thinks the answer to business problems is to waste money on non-essentials.
I'll tell you the type of card people hold onto: full color cards with a photo. Those get you noticed, if they're nicely done, people hold onto them, and if you can fit it in a Rolodex then they can hang onto it and find you when they need what you're selling.
For four bucks he should be doing a brochure, not some oversized business card. Most of us have too much clutter, and it means that - as other /.'ers have stated, means his non-rolodexable business card will go file 13. It's an ego trip for him to create an expensive card, but don't forget, he's in public relations and those people are supposed to do things to get attention, that's their stock in trade. Now, I agree most business cards are crap because they're boring. But they're usually meant to be. You just want to provide your information; you dazzle with performance and getting the job done, not with sizzle and flash.
But people who do public relations or advertising, all they have is sizzle and flash, their objective is to get attention, and lots of it, so in his case the type of card he's doing probably works. For the vast majority of us in business, either his card is overkill or it might even backfire, because if you're spending that much on your advertising, are you providing a professional service. On the other hand, he's selling advertising so he's showing the customer how he can be over-the-top and really effective in an environment where what you need is lots of buzz.
For the vast majority of us, either boring or slightly better is reasonable and it should be able to be put in a Rolodex. Or, better yet, make your card as a refrigerator magnet. That you can do for about 25c. Do full color with something really nice looking like kittens, or puppies, or a sunset or, since he sells crowds, a huge crowd drawing, say, an image of the globe - not his "crap" face - on a laser or inkjet and you make something people will keep around.
One guy who sells real estate does a brochure where he shows the "big blue marble" image of earth. And then below it, is the line "this is what we sell" and his name and phone number. Probably costs at most $1 a copy, but it's the kind of thing that's so attractive that people will keep it on their coffee table, and thus you've kept your name where the customer will see it. That's what your business card - or whatever you use to make people notice you - is supposed to do.
So yes, it's sometimes possible for a true statement to be defamatory.
Do you have case law on this? Now, maybe you're in the U.K. or somewhere in Europe, but my understanding is, at least in the U.S., is that truth is an absolute defense. You can say anything about someone, no matter how malicious you use it, as long as it is true. Now, if you've got case law or some statute law to the contrary I'd love to hear about it. I think that the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell would be instructive in this case. Hustler was sued because it ran a parody ad (marked as such) that said that Rev. Falwell admitted he had sex with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found for the magazine for libel (the ad was a parody so it was clear it wasn't him actually claiming what was said, therefore not libelous) but found for Falwell on emotional distress. The magazine appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled there was no defamation because no person could possibly believe it was true, and merely having your feelings hurt is not adequate to be compensable damages absent actual libel. So if something which is false and insulting about someone that cannot possibly be believed as true cannot be defaming, then declaring saying something which is true to be actionable would appear to be madness.
How exactly is this a story? Microsoft Windows is so fragile that it's very easy to break it. Oh wait, you mean they broke glass windows! With Slashdot being primarily a tech-related site I was thinking of that "windows". (Using voice of Emily Latella) "Never mind."
But anyway, an entertainment program was doing a segment involving explosives where, as a result of an accident or miscalculation, the explosive force was too much and it caused unintended damage to outlying structures. As is the standard legal requirement when an organization uses or transports explosives, the company using them is considered automatically liable, that is, they are liable for any damage caused by their actions without regard to fault, even if they were prudent and took every precaution. This is the same standard that an employer has with respect to on-the-job injuries to its employees; that's why companies have to carry Worker's Compensation insurance (or be self-insured).
In these sort of situations (employers with respect to their employees, users and transporters of explosives) we presume these are or can be dangerous operations and those doing these things are required to include the potential cost of injuries as part of their overhead.
There was a movie, Blown Away with Tommy Lee Jones and Jeff Bridges, where they blew up a ship in Boston Harbor as part of the ending. The company announced this and stated that if anyone had damage to their house or building as a result they would pay for it.
So a company required to protect third-parties against damage went out and fixed the damage which they caused immediately. This is not newsworthy. They immediately fixed the damage they caused and acted responsibly. For that, we can say thank you for doing the right thing. Oh, wait, I suppose the fact that they had a bigger than expected explosion is newsworthy because it doesn't happen all that often.
----
Paul Robinson <paul@paul-robinson.us> — My Blog
Nowadays you have to properly structure yourself if you're going to operate any business, and it looks like they didn't. This is why we have corporations, so that those who invest in a corporation are not liable for its expenses.
I note that Microsoft licenses its operating systems through a Nevada subsidiary, which saves it millions it would have to pay to the state of Washington.
But you don't have to do it just for taxes, and it's cheap to do. It costs $50 (it was $25 a couple of years ago, that's when I got one) to set up a new corporation or L.L.C. in, say, Colorado and you can do it over the Internet in 10 minutes with a credit card; all you need is an address there and the corporation can be its own registered agent. It's $10 to renew it the next year; there's no excuse for not registering a new corporation or LLC for every aspect of your business
So now they have to sue the party that created the device which might be incorporated in one state, the marketer in a second, the trademark holder in a third, and so on. There is no one party with deep pockets, and you've got the advantage if you get sued, you just sell the assets to another corporation and maybe go bankrupt or fight for a while and drain the other side with legal bills, then if you want, let them get a judgment or default judgment against the first corporation (which will be a shell corporation with virtually no assets) and have to start the practice all over again playing "whack-a-mole" to try to find the responsible party.
Or my understanding is, using limited partnerships and LLCs, you can use something called a "Charge Order" such that the assets are held by one company, the income by another, and if you sue them, even if you win, first you can't get to the assets, two you can't get to the income, and three, the IRS will impute the income you didn't get to you, so if you get a judgment against them for, say, $50,000,000 that they don't pay because of the charge order the IRS considers it as if you got the $50,000,000 and taxes you on it! As a result you're worse off than if you'd never sued them!
She had to give someone as a reference so I told her to give my phone number at the office and a fake name I gave her so I would know what it was about. Not only that, but the name I had her give them was one I had registered with the state's fictitious name registration agency, so we weren't even doing anything the slightest bit either illegal or improper! As slimy as dead mackerel in the moonlight, but 100% legal.
Because once they find it, someone will notice the Giant Sucking Sound (as H. Ross Perot called it), look over and scream, "Oh God! It's a black hole! Run for your lives." Not that will do them any good, but...
There is a man by the name of Paul Robinson who is a famous soccer player in Europe. Except for the fact I think I'm probably ten years older than him, weigh 400 pounds and in a wheelchair, I sometimes wondered if I could just make people think I was him.
Page 14 of the bill specifically prohibits the State of Illinois from spending any money as long as Rod R. Blagojevich is still governor. I do not like this. First, it's unnecessary as he's already been impeached. Second, Personally, this sounds awfully like a "bill of Attainder" where someone is convicted by act of Congress. Further, it might violate some other Constitutional provisions. This sets a bad precedent, because if you allow this sort of thing it can be prostituted into any number of things, e.g. if some particular person is not convicted the state is denied funding.
Whether the guy did something wrong or not, allowing a statute to specifically require someone be in a disadvantaged position is a bad idea. Because first they'll use it on someone who supposedly is really bad because most people either won't care or will approve, then it gets used on other people as the skids have been greased to allow it.
And like the proverbial frog in boiling water, we won't even realize what has happened until maybe one of us gets targeted, e.g. Salman Rushdie being named in a death sentence Fatwa which while Iran has supposedly distanced itself, has done nothing to repudiate it and probably helped in the murders done under its order.
Since the site is marked 'fake' it clearly is a parody. There may be grounds to argue that references to his wife and child are unacceptable because they might not be public figures, but the guy he's parodying clearly is. His own lawyers in the letter have conceded he is a public figure. Thus the standard for defamation is much higher than with a private party. While I'm not a lawyer, based on supreme court decisions such as New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, no reasonable person could believe this was from the guy or that what is being said was anything but parody and satire. They have to show that the material was known to be untrue and was posted for malice, or was done with reckless neglect for the truth, and that someone could believe it to be true.
Thus the claim of defamation and almost all of the claims they are making are on their face at best obviously incorrect as negligence, or quite possibly intentional lies.
Given this to be the case, his lawyers should know this, and their threats in their Cease & Desist letter may be intentional misinformation given by mail or communications system for the purpose of causing others to expend money or resources over reliance upon their misinformation. Thus the lawyers bluster and hyperbole may constitute mail and/or wire fraud in interstate commerce (it mentions it was both mailed and faxed) since either they knew that, based on current court decisions, that it was false, or should have known that it was. Thus their threat letter may, in and of itself, either give rise to a fraud claim, or might be grounds to have his lawyers prosecuted for mail and/or wire fraud.
I'm waiting for someone to someday nail some lawyers who make claims in C&D letters that they know to be false.
I used to have two hampsters and three cats.
Yew kned tu lern tu spel; itz "hamster" nawt "hampster." Eyeve deliburately mispeld evry othr werd tew emfasize thot poynt.
Live with rats? How ghetto is your "dealership"?
My understanding is that you can find rats almost anywhere; the population of rats in most urban areas is estimated to usually equal the human population. We don't really have ways to rat-proof the sewers and storm drains.
This is the most important part, but the next part is important too: KILL KILL KILL. Rats reproduce like crazy so killing the odd rat is not going to do it. Over-do it if you have to. How many bait stations does your exterminator put down? Tell him to put down ten times as many... better yet, hire a new exterminator. Bring out the heavy guns. Remember, nobody ever failed to eliminate a rat population by using too many traps and too much poison.
The Webcomic "Schlock Mercenary" has a fictional book titled "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates" in which one of the rules is:
37. There is no 'overkill.' There is only 'open fire' and 'time to reload.'
Mice will brave death for peanut butter.
And if it's from peanuts released by Peanut Corp. of America, that company that actually used the peanuts that fell on the floor, the mouse might be braving death just eating it, even if it wasn't in a trap!
When [rats] come across a foreign substance (a seed, a fruit, a piece of garbage, a nice shiny cable), they'll try a few bites of it. if it makes them sick, they throw it up and remember not to eat it again- apparently they have very good memory.
Rats can't vomit. That's why the poison Red Squill is favored by some people. It triggers the vomit reflex which helps if dogs or other friendlies eat it but since rats can't vomit, they die from the poison.