The Fifth Amendment says, in pertinent part, "nor shall any person... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has held that the term "person" includes noncitizens.
(While apparently not relevant here, it may be of interest to know that civil suits and deportation proceedings arising out of criminal activity are not "criminal case[s]" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.)
For the reasons you suggest, there is a rule of criminal proceudre about when you can use deposition testimony and how it can be edited. (See my other post on the subject.) I'm unaware of any basis for suggesting that the rule wasn't applied in this case.
At the trial or upon any hearing, a part or all of a deposition, so far as otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the witness gives testimony at the trial or hearing inconsistent with that witness' deposition. Any deposition may also be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. If only a part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require the offering of all of it which is relevant to the part offered and any party may offer other parts.
The usual method is that one side "designates" deposition testimony to be read (or played) to the jury and the other side "counter-designates" testimony which it believes is necessary to make the testimony complete. The court is usually provided with a transcript of the entire deposition marked to show the designated and counter-designated portions. The point is to read (or play) only the relevant portions of the testimony rather than waste the jury's time and confuse the issues. There's nothing fishy about it.
If the defense wanted Skylarov to explain away what he said on tape, it had the right to call Skylarov itself -- and indeed, it did so. There's no right to have the one immediately follow the other.
(In more routine situations, it frequently happens that a witness's direct testimony will conclude at the end of one trial day and the cross-examination begins the next day. That might be a bad break for the cross-examining party, but it's not against the rules.)
Re:This article isn't very good. Neat story though
on
When Sysadmins Go Bad
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The foregoing is correct: buying options, in this case puts, is a good way to make an enormous return on large short-term movements in stock prices...
... which is why the SEC investigates any large options purchases which occur shortly before large short-term movements in stock prices. If you're one of these lucky devils, they will probably get your name and address from your broker and see if you are employed by the company in question, if you work for a law or accounting firm retained by that company, if you have the same last name or home address as someone who works for the company, etc., etc.
There is nothing sinister about this kind of investigation; it's routine police work. (Likewise, if you're the town layabout, and the day after a masked man robs the town bank you start spending money like it was going out of style, the sheriff will probably peg you as a suspect.) What is amazing is that people do not realize that it is the SEC's job to do this sort of investigation: they just blithely go ahead with their stupid criminal plans. Even lawyers, who ought to know better even if they are unwilling to behave better, do this sometimes.
The perfect inside trader would have 10 loyal friends located around the country willing to make small purchases of options on his behalf, to forward him all the profits, and to stonewall the SEC investigators who come knocking. Believe me, you don't have 10 friends like that.
Re:Shakespearian Influences?
on
Ask William Shatner
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Here's a variant but perhaps related question:
Anyone familiar with the history of the theater knows the names of great actors like Richard Burbage (a member of Shakespeare's company) and Sarah Bernhardt. We know their work only by reputation, however; their performances are of course lost to history.
You are one of the very first group of actors in history whose performances are, barring some cataclysm, going to be preserved forever. When you showed up to perform at Studio One or Playhouse 90, on anthology series like "The Outer Limits" and "The Twilight Zone," or later on series television like "Star Trek," did it ever occur to you that work you may have done with little or no rehearsal would have that kind of persistence? If so, did it affect your work? If not, is there anything you would have done differently?
(What I'm trying to get at here is that while most everyone recognizes that some early television ranks with the classics, the fact of the matter is that television in the early days was very much a sausage factory: there was no backlog of syndicated material, and a lot of content had to be churned out. People generally didn't sit around saying, "Gee, we're creating a new genre of theatrical art, how should we think about that?" -- there was too much work to be done. Even years later people didn't appreciate the significance of the early years of television; a lot of film was thrown out or left to rot. So maybe the question I'm trying to get at here is really, "Now that we recognize that significance of the early years of television, do you think about your work as an actor differently now than you did then, and if so how?")
I did more research, and found out about eye exercises. I adopted new habits, most notably staring out window at horizon for a few seconds every 10 mins.
If you have more information about this, do tell. What do you recommend?
Have [the lawyer] take you up on spec.... The minimum will be a suit to recover expenses.... Make sure that you have your lawyer agree in writing that if you are not successful in pressing suit, his fees are waived.
I see what you're trying to get at here, but ultimately this comes down to: (1) make sure you are not inconvenienced or put to expense, and (2) sue to recover for your nonexistent inconvenience and expenses. Courts don't like that sort of thing from small fry any more than they like it from big fish, and I doubt there are many lawyers who would see much profit in such a scheme.
If you are referring to the Harvard Six Cities Study (Dockery et al., 1993), you may be unaware that a recent reanalysis of that data by the Health Effects Institute, an organization funded by the EPA and industry, has reaffirmed the correctness of that study.
The Harvard Six Cities Study showed increased mortality -- i.e., early death -- associated with particulate air pollution. Industry spent millions to smear that study as junk science. Interested persons are invited to Google and read what they find; just remember that web pages for organizations called "Citizens Against Junk Science" are industry-backed and evaluate with due care.
Re:Agree: Time Travel, Holodeck, and Q plots suck
on
Star Trek: Pick A Plot
·
· Score: 1
Of course, the real issue is that so many sci-fi plot points are impossible under the laws of physics as they are generally known (whether we're talking about the 1960's or 2002): faster-than-light travel, time travel, transporters, warp fields, subspace communication. Breaking the rules is what enables the plots to get interesting...
'Twould be interesting to see some sci-fi involving interstellar travel that didn't break the rules.
(The film Contact comes close. I say "see" because I'm not current on written sci-fi. I'm aware of a novel called The Sparrow which imagines an instellar flight under relativistic physics. No doubt there are many others.)
I work for one of the largest law firms in the US. Our transactional lawyers -- and only a few firms do anywhere near as many transactions as we do -- switched to Word a couple years ago, largely because our clients use it. Litigators are slowly moving to Word. The emerging standard of choice for document exchange is PDF (if you don't want the recipient to mark up your document) or Word (if you do). This transition is in my experience typical of other large law firms.
Some courts and agencies continue to require submission of documents in WordPerfect format, however.
Actually, Congress' power to create the FCC comes from the clause which permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The point may not be inarguable, but the regulation of the national telecommunications infrastructure seems well within the domain of "interstate commerce."
There is an interesting constitutional question as to whether Congress can delegate its regulatory authority to administrative agencies such as the FCC. Very roughly speaking, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate regulatory authority as long as the regulatory agency has clear instructions as to what sort of regulations it is supposed to be making. Questions like these are treated in detail in the field of law called "administrative law."
I usually find that the cheapest entry level phone anyone offers has about 7 times the number of features I want in a phone to begin with.
I agree, with the exception of the alarm clock feature, which relieves me of the need for a travel alarm. I've used the calculator feature (on my Ericsson T28) once or twice but could really take or leave it.
The best features are the ones that operate in the background without my prompting. Matching incoming caller ID against my phone directory (so that the LCD reads "Bob calling" rather than "2125551234 calling") is a good example.
Useless non-features which clutter menus -- e.g., "Change startup message" (???) -- should be eliminated.
That's true, but if you have a free or near-free energy source (geothermal, efficient wind or solar) the fact that you waste some energy producing the hydrogen isn't a problem.
Broadband users have been riding the wave of cheap access for a long time, and its just about time that we got what was coming to us.
What makes you think that broadband is currently priced below cost? (I agree that if it is priced below cost, that can't go on forever, but I don't know that it is.)
SLashdot programmers and technicians, take a stand and refuse to answer this question, we DONT want them to know how to manage a global programming team, I mean unless you are the manager why should you help them fire you?
Or perhaps we should just go back to discussing why it's so obviously a stupid idea for programmers to join unions.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fifth Amendment says, in pertinent part, "nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has held that the term "person" includes noncitizens.
(While apparently not relevant here, it may be of interest to know that civil suits and deportation proceedings arising out of criminal activity are not "criminal case[s]" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.)
For the reasons you suggest, there is a rule of criminal proceudre about when you can use deposition testimony and how it can be edited. (See my other post on the subject.) I'm unaware of any basis for suggesting that the rule wasn't applied in this case.
Depositions taken in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 may be used at trial in accordance with subpart (e) of that Rule:
Dmitry wasn't the accused; Elcomsoft was. Dmitry waived his Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a promise of immunity.
The usual method is that one side "designates" deposition testimony to be read (or played) to the jury and the other side "counter-designates" testimony which it believes is necessary to make the testimony complete. The court is usually provided with a transcript of the entire deposition marked to show the designated and counter-designated portions. The point is to read (or play) only the relevant portions of the testimony rather than waste the jury's time and confuse the issues. There's nothing fishy about it.
If the defense wanted Skylarov to explain away what he said on tape, it had the right to call Skylarov itself -- and indeed, it did so. There's no right to have the one immediately follow the other.
(In more routine situations, it frequently happens that a witness's direct testimony will conclude at the end of one trial day and the cross-examination begins the next day. That might be a bad break for the cross-examining party, but it's not against the rules.)
... which is why the SEC investigates any large options purchases which occur shortly before large short-term movements in stock prices. If you're one of these lucky devils, they will probably get your name and address from your broker and see if you are employed by the company in question, if you work for a law or accounting firm retained by that company, if you have the same last name or home address as someone who works for the company, etc., etc.
There is nothing sinister about this kind of investigation; it's routine police work. (Likewise, if you're the town layabout, and the day after a masked man robs the town bank you start spending money like it was going out of style, the sheriff will probably peg you as a suspect.) What is amazing is that people do not realize that it is the SEC's job to do this sort of investigation: they just blithely go ahead with their stupid criminal plans. Even lawyers, who ought to know better even if they are unwilling to behave better, do this sometimes.
The perfect inside trader would have 10 loyal friends located around the country willing to make small purchases of options on his behalf, to forward him all the profits, and to stonewall the SEC investigators who come knocking. Believe me, you don't have 10 friends like that.
Here's a variant but perhaps related question:
Anyone familiar with the history of the theater knows the names of great actors like Richard Burbage (a member of Shakespeare's company) and Sarah Bernhardt. We know their work only by reputation, however; their performances are of course lost to history.
You are one of the very first group of actors in history whose performances are, barring some cataclysm, going to be preserved forever. When you showed up to perform at Studio One or Playhouse 90, on anthology series like "The Outer Limits" and "The Twilight Zone," or later on series television like "Star Trek," did it ever occur to you that work you may have done with little or no rehearsal would have that kind of persistence? If so, did it affect your work? If not, is there anything you would have done differently?
(What I'm trying to get at here is that while most everyone recognizes that some early television ranks with the classics, the fact of the matter is that television in the early days was very much a sausage factory: there was no backlog of syndicated material, and a lot of content had to be churned out. People generally didn't sit around saying, "Gee, we're creating a new genre of theatrical art, how should we think about that?" -- there was too much work to be done. Even years later people didn't appreciate the significance of the early years of television; a lot of film was thrown out or left to rot. So maybe the question I'm trying to get at here is really, "Now that we recognize that significance of the early years of television, do you think about your work as an actor differently now than you did then, and if so how?")
Like bananas, the color red, and Kazakhstan.
I did more research, and found out about eye exercises. I adopted new habits, most notably staring out window at horizon for a few seconds every 10 mins.
If you have more information about this, do tell. What do you recommend?
Have [the lawyer] take you up on spec. ... The minimum will be a suit to recover expenses. ... Make sure that you have your lawyer agree in writing that if you are not successful in pressing suit, his fees are waived.
I see what you're trying to get at here, but ultimately this comes down to: (1) make sure you are not inconvenienced or put to expense, and (2) sue to recover for your nonexistent inconvenience and expenses. Courts don't like that sort of thing from small fry any more than they like it from big fish, and I doubt there are many lawyers who would see much profit in such a scheme.
If you are referring to the Harvard Six Cities Study (Dockery et al., 1993), you may be unaware that a recent reanalysis of that data by the Health Effects Institute, an organization funded by the EPA and industry, has reaffirmed the correctness of that study.
The Harvard Six Cities Study showed increased mortality -- i.e., early death -- associated with particulate air pollution. Industry spent millions to smear that study as junk science. Interested persons are invited to Google and read what they find; just remember that web pages for organizations called "Citizens Against Junk Science" are industry-backed and evaluate with due care.
Dinosaur-like animals discovered in United States: film at 11.
Of course, the real issue is that so many sci-fi plot points are impossible under the laws of physics as they are generally known (whether we're talking about the 1960's or 2002): faster-than-light travel, time travel, transporters, warp fields, subspace communication. Breaking the rules is what enables the plots to get interesting ...
'Twould be interesting to see some sci-fi involving interstellar travel that didn't break the rules.
(The film Contact comes close. I say "see" because I'm not current on written sci-fi. I'm aware of a novel called The Sparrow which imagines an instellar flight under relativistic physics. No doubt there are many others.)
Take her out of it, and you've got a cheesy web site. (Rimshot.)
I work for one of the largest law firms in the US. Our transactional lawyers -- and only a few firms do anywhere near as many transactions as we do -- switched to Word a couple years ago, largely because our clients use it. Litigators are slowly moving to Word. The emerging standard of choice for document exchange is PDF (if you don't want the recipient to mark up your document) or Word (if you do). This transition is in my experience typical of other large law firms.
Some courts and agencies continue to require submission of documents in WordPerfect format, however.
Mr. Heinlein, so glad to see you're alive and posting on Slashdot.
Putting it out with the trash continues to be the recommended solution, unfortunately.
Don't be ridiculous. A proper beer can holder would be big enough for the foam wraparound with NASCAR logos on it.
Actually, Congress' power to create the FCC comes from the clause which permits Congress to regulate interstate commerce. The point may not be inarguable, but the regulation of the national telecommunications infrastructure seems well within the domain of "interstate commerce."
There is an interesting constitutional question as to whether Congress can delegate its regulatory authority to administrative agencies such as the FCC. Very roughly speaking, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate regulatory authority as long as the regulatory agency has clear instructions as to what sort of regulations it is supposed to be making. Questions like these are treated in detail in the field of law called "administrative law."
I agree, with the exception of the alarm clock feature, which relieves me of the need for a travel alarm. I've used the calculator feature (on my Ericsson T28) once or twice but could really take or leave it.
The best features are the ones that operate in the background without my prompting. Matching incoming caller ID against my phone directory (so that the LCD reads "Bob calling" rather than "2125551234 calling") is a good example.
Useless non-features which clutter menus -- e.g., "Change startup message" (???) -- should be eliminated.
That's true, but if you have a free or near-free energy source (geothermal, efficient wind or solar) the fact that you waste some energy producing the hydrogen isn't a problem.
What makes you think that broadband is currently priced below cost? (I agree that if it is priced below cost, that can't go on forever, but I don't know that it is.)
That's true for fusion. If you're just going to burn the stuff, all you need is a spark. (Cf. the Hindenburg.)
Or perhaps we should just go back to discussing why it's so obviously a stupid idea for programmers to join unions.