This is not a surprise if you actually read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 4 (f) says (in relevant part) (italics added):
Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed... may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those means authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country... ... (C) unless prohibited by the law of the foreign country, by
(i) delivery to the individual personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint; or
(ii) any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.
Plus, under FRCP 4 (d) (2) (b) the defendant has a duty to avoid costs of service if a waiver of service is requested "through first-class mail or other relaible means."
The touchstone of whether service of process comports with due process is whether it is a method reasonably calculated to give notice under the circumstances. Our office regularly files cases requesting emergency authorization to demolish buildings that are in an imminently dangerous and hazardous condition and we provide notice by fax or by leaving messages on voice mail or by posting a notice on the door of the building. Under the circumstances that someone may be killed by a falling building if something is not done quickly, that is always sufficient notice under the circumstances.
In this case, the defendants were in a foreign country, at a concealed address, and the only known method of providing notice was via e-mail. Under many state laws, service by publication (those little ads in the back of the newspaper) is effective and constitutional. Certainly service via e-mail to the address provided by the defendant is more reasonably calculated to give notice than publication in the Law Bulletin would be.
This is yet another case of somebody seeing a high-tech buzzword and thinking it's hot news when it's really something that people have been doing for years.
Of course, if judges could be held personally liable if they err, they would be sued in every case by the losing side who thinks the judge's decision is wrong. And no judge would ever make a decision under those circumstances. You cannot have a legal system without judicial immunity.
Not to mention that if the losing side could sue the judge, we'd need more judges to hear the lawsuits against the judges, who would then be sued by the side that lost the lawsuit against the first judges, which would require more judges to hear the suits against the judges who heard the suits against the judges....
And before you say that it would be a good thing to not have a legal system, who ya gonna call when somebody breaks into your house to steal your DVDs and your Linux computer? Emanuel Goldstein?
if you read the press release about the Asset Purchase Agreement under which Be sold almost everything to Palm:
Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement, Be retained certain rights, assets and liabilities in connection with the transaction, including its cash and cash equivalents, receivables, certain contractual liabilities under in-licensing agreements,
and rights to assert and bring certain claims and causes of action, including under antitrust laws. Be is in the process of investigating the merits and potential value of pursuing the retained claims and causes of action. Be has not yet brought any such claim or cause of action. Under the terms of the plan of dissolution, if, notwithstanding the approval of the dissolution and the adoption of the plan of dissolution by the stockholders of Be, the board of directors of Be determines that it would be in the best interests of Be's stockholders or creditors for Be not to dissolve, including in order to permit Be to pursue (or more easily pursue) any retained claims or causes of action, the dissolution of Be may be abandoned or delayed until a future date to be determined by Be's board of directors. Regardless of whether Be dissolves, Be will not continue to exist as an operating entity.
I finally gave up and put mine on the floor after I dropped it off the desk onto the tile floor about 20 times. Plus it's been dropped onto concrete parking lots a few times (while turned on), and has travelled about 30,000 miles in the top case of a motorcycle in a minimally padded bag. None of this has fazed it in the least.
Too bad nobody wanted to buy these things. And too bad Mitsubishi didn't overproduce enough of them so that they could still be found in the surplus outlets.
Joe Burton says that the DOJ statement "is a cleverly crafted statement that promotes the notion that Dmitry admits wrongful conduct and has entered into a Plea Agreement with the U.S. Government."
But the DOJ statement never uses the term "Plea Agreement", nor does it claim that Dmitri admitted to "wrongful" conduct.
Dmitri claims that he is not cooperating with the government.
But in the Diversion Agreement he agrees to testify if requested by the government in the case of United States v. Elcom Ltd., agrees that any statements he makes may be used against him in a prosecution for obstruction of justice or perjury, and waives most of his constitutional rights in exchange for a promise that he will not be prosecuted if he lives up to his end of the Agreement. Not cooperation?
And ElcomSoft says that Dmitri's testimony can only be supportive to their case and they only want Dmitri to tell the truth.
But of course, ElcomSoft is still a defendant facing criminal prosecution in this case, and criminal defendants always claim that when the true facts come out, they will be shown to be innocent.
So once you cut through the spin that Dmitri, ElcomSoft and the EFF (none of whom are neutral, disinterested parties in this case) put on it, the only real undisputed inaccuracy in the DOJ statement is the bit about the "former" employer. Which is probably a misreading of Dmitri's statement in the Diversion Agreement that "continuing through July 15, 2001, [he] was employed by" ElcomSoft.
The specs say "Maximum operating altitude 10,000 feet". So if I put this on my motorcycle (after figuring out how to make a 12 V-> FireWire adapter), I can't use it over any mountain passes in Colorado?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just amazed that a criminal organization would file a legal TRADEMARK.
Seriously. Were they going to SUE someone for infringement?
The Hell's Angels are notoriously vigorous trademark litigants, going so far as to sue Disney for using their symbols in "Wild Hogs"
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/disney/hamcdisney30806cmp.html
Sounds like the same problem as in Microsoft Knowledge Base article 270008? Removing a couple of values from a couple of registry keys solves it.
(P.S. Doesn't anybody Google to see if somebody else has seen the problem before posting a "X breaks Y" story?)
This is not a surprise if you actually read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FRCP 4 (f) says (in relevant part) (italics added):
... may be effected in a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
...
Unless otherwise provided by federal law, service upon an individual from whom a waiver has not been obtained and filed
(1) by any internationally agreed means reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those means authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents; or
(2) if there is no internationally agreed means of service or the applicable international agreement allows other means of service, provided that service is reasonably calculated to give notice:
(A) in the manner prescribed by the law of the foreign country for service in that country
...
(C) unless prohibited by the law of the foreign country, by
(i) delivery to the individual personally of a copy of the summons and the complaint; or
(ii) any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of the court to the party to be served; or
(3) by other means not prohibited by international agreement as may be directed by the court.
Plus, under FRCP 4 (d) (2) (b) the defendant has a duty to avoid costs of service if a waiver of service is requested "through first-class mail or other relaible means."
The touchstone of whether service of process comports with due process is whether it is a method reasonably calculated to give notice under the circumstances. Our office regularly files cases requesting emergency authorization to demolish buildings that are in an imminently dangerous and hazardous condition and we provide notice by fax or by leaving messages on voice mail or by posting a notice on the door of the building. Under the circumstances that someone may be killed by a falling building if something is not done quickly, that is always sufficient notice under the circumstances.
In this case, the defendants were in a foreign country, at a concealed address, and the only known method of providing notice was via e-mail. Under many state laws, service by publication (those little ads in the back of the newspaper) is effective and constitutional. Certainly service via e-mail to the address provided by the defendant is more reasonably calculated to give notice than publication in the Law Bulletin would be.
This is yet another case of somebody seeing a high-tech buzzword and thinking it's hot news when it's really something that people have been doing for years.
Of course, if judges could be held personally liable if they err, they would be sued in every case by the losing side who thinks the judge's decision is wrong. And no judge would ever make a decision under those circumstances. You cannot have a legal system without judicial immunity.
Not to mention that if the losing side could sue the judge, we'd need more judges to hear the lawsuits against the judges, who would then be sued by the side that lost the lawsuit against the first judges, which would require more judges to hear the suits against the judges who heard the suits against the judges....
And before you say that it would be a good thing to not have a legal system, who ya gonna call when somebody breaks into your house to steal your DVDs and your Linux computer? Emanuel Goldstein?
I finally gave up and put mine on the floor after I dropped it off the desk onto the tile floor about 20 times. Plus it's been dropped onto concrete parking lots a few times (while turned on), and has travelled about 30,000 miles in the top case of a motorcycle in a minimally padded bag. None of this has fazed it in the least.
Too bad nobody wanted to buy these things. And too bad Mitsubishi didn't overproduce enough of them so that they could still be found in the surplus outlets.
But the DOJ statement never uses the term "Plea Agreement", nor does it claim that Dmitri admitted to "wrongful" conduct.
Dmitri claims that he is not cooperating with the government.
But in the Diversion Agreement he agrees to testify if requested by the government in the case of United States v. Elcom Ltd., agrees that any statements he makes may be used against him in a prosecution for obstruction of justice or perjury, and waives most of his constitutional rights in exchange for a promise that he will not be prosecuted if he lives up to his end of the Agreement. Not cooperation?
And ElcomSoft says that Dmitri's testimony can only be supportive to their case and they only want Dmitri to tell the truth.
But of course, ElcomSoft is still a defendant facing criminal prosecution in this case, and criminal defendants always claim that when the true facts come out, they will be shown to be innocent.
So once you cut through the spin that Dmitri, ElcomSoft and the EFF (none of whom are neutral, disinterested parties in this case) put on it, the only real undisputed inaccuracy in the DOJ statement is the bit about the "former" employer. Which is probably a misreading of Dmitri's statement in the Diversion Agreement that "continuing through July 15, 2001, [he] was employed by" ElcomSoft.
Remember that PR works for both sides, folks.
The specs say "Maximum operating altitude 10,000 feet". So if I put this on my motorcycle (after figuring out how to make a 12 V-> FireWire adapter), I can't use it over any mountain passes in Colorado?