I see where you are coming from, but the electron theorum is not the test. Its whether someone has minimum contacts with a state, avail themselves of the law and commerce of the state so that they could reasonable foresee that they might be sued based on their actions.
You make a deal with AOL -- they are in Virginia. Most likely their servers are there too. You direct an attack at a VA resident using the service and equipment provided by AOL. This is pretty substantial. It isn't a case where the message ends up in VA. Its pretty much a directed action.
The case was decided in Federal Court based on the diversity of the parties. Most all torts are state matters. I missed the arrest part; that would be kind of odd.
They don't have to go. They can stay at home and have a default judgement entered against them. If they do not feel that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in VA, they can collaterly attack the judgement in Texas. If they lose on this issue, they lose on everything b/c the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution requires states to recognize other states judgements.
Your right, its not the different. However, just b/c the paper was sold in Va. does not mean that you would be subject to jurisdiction. If it reaches VA on the stream of commerce, and you did not reach out to the forum state, then you could possibly avoid jurisdiction. If the paper had a large circulation in VA you might be libel even if published in another sovereign state (i.e. Washington Post).
Convenience of forum is from the standpoint of the defendant, since they are in a position to lose liberty or property. In a counter-claim action, its the original defendant that matters.
The other side of the statement is something to the affect of "...all issues may be properly adjudicated." This swings it back into VA, because the action, evidence and most of the witnesses would be in VA.
Another first year survivor, who just finished a Civil Procedure exam.
Per your (1) response, your analogy is not quite on point. Your example has Canada passing a law that affects Floridians in Florida. The jurisdictional question deals with foreign persons committing an action in Virginia that affects Virginians.
It does have merit. Consider a pharmaceutical company in California that makes a deadly drug that's marketed to Nebraska. Someone in Nebraska dies. Shouldn't the California company face Nebraska penalties.
This is the case here. There was no landmark decision about electronic location. It merely states that a Texas citizen reached out to make contact with a Virginia company. It used the services of the Virginia company in a negligently liable fashion, which harmed a resident. They should have anticipated that since they availed themselves of Virginia laws and commerce that they should have to face penalties in that jurisdiction.
Long arm statutes are necessary b/c our legal theory state that courts have no power until the legislature grants them power. All states have long arm statutes to enumerate certain powers of the court, or grant them all power that the consititution does not strictly reserve for the federal government (i.e. bankrupcy, patent and copyright, etc.)
A person can make a motion based on improper venue. Venue is generally decided by:
(1) The location of one of the defendants, if all defendants reside in the same state.
(2) The place where the action occurred
(3) Any venue where the defendant may be reached, if neither of the above apply.
Number two is probably the winner. They can still file a motion, b/c due process requires foreseeability. The circuit judge has said its foreseeable. The might ask for certiori to the Supreme Court.
1. You could no-show and default the judgement to the plaintiff. This is a tort action, so you are not facing criminal charges.
2. the soverign state of VA has jurisdiction b/c the AOLer purposely availed themselves of the benefit of VA laws by reaching out and making a contract to a VA corporation, AOL. As for anyone running a server in VA -- it probably wouldn't apply. As for any ISP incorporated in VA -- I'd watch myself.
A foreign state would not extradite you unless you committed a crime in their state. This is a tort action. If you don't show, they enter a default judgement against you. The plaintiff would take it to your home state where under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, your state would enforce the judgement.
I am sure these same types of problems existed in the early days of radio. The US solution was the FCC. I'm not sure the Inet needs that type of regulation.
Or you can collaterly attack in your home jurisdiction. Although this is an all or nothing gamble, as VA would issue a default judgement against you if you no show.
Or better yet, try to negotiate a deal with your ISP so that your home state's law will apply to all disputes whether in contract or in tort, and also set your home state as the choice of venue for all disputes. Top it off with an agreement for the ISP to indemnify you for any and all actions arising out of the agreement.
If you pull this off, give me a buzz, b/c I would like for you to negotiate my next contract.
I don't think precedent has been set for electronic storage. If you contract for electronic storage with an individual in another state. You may be subject to that state's jurisdiction if the crime or tort is related to the material stored on the server.
This really isn't anything new. I believe the last landmark case on personal jurisdiction based on contacts by contract was decided in '73.
I agree with the other post about suing in other jurisdictions. The defendant has to object to personal jurisdiction, or else collaterally attack it in their home state. Thus, I could go run an initiate a suit against anyone, in any state, serve them with process, and get a default judgement if they no show. It won't do much good unless I can have someone enforce it.
Per some of my earlier posts. The most likely reason for jurisdiction is an AOLer reaches out to make contact with the forum state by virtue of its contract with the ISP. Burger King has done this with a Michigan franchisee, and set a landmark case for personal jurisdiction.
In contrast, an advertiser in a National Publication does not generally subject itself to jurisdiction to every place where it is circulated. They may, however, have jurisdiction based on where the publisher is located.
If you specifically target a forum state. (i.e. Web site of naked people from Nebraska); you will likely have sufficient contacts.
I think packet routing would fall under the advertising category.
Unless the jurisdiction question is overturned, it probably means that any spammer who uses AOL as an ISP can be sued in Virginia. It does not necessarily mean that anyone who spams to AOL can be sued in VA. In order for jurisdictional minimum contacts to be met, the defendant USUALLY has to seek out activity in the forum state. If they spam to a list server, it might be below the threshold.
Its most likely that the persons contract with AOL subjected them to jurisdiction.
I agree with your premise, but I disagree with you on three counts. First, libel and slander are not crimes. At best they are torts, and the most you can ask is that the offended person is put back into a state as if the action had never occurred. A libel should never punished as criminal.
Second, I know I'm in a minority, but I feel the constitution does give you the right to even slander and libel. I agree with Hugo Black that when the constution says, "Congress will pass no law..." they mean NO law.
Finally, the issue wasn't libel, it was pornography, which is a community standard. Libel requires proof of harm. Pornography laws carry no such requirement.
As for the jurisdictional aspect, the same rules apply that go for all other forms of mass communication. In US Jurisprudence, a person must have minimum contacts with the state in order for in not to violate their constitutional right of due process.
In this case, it was not b/c a person in VA read the material that caused the minimum contact. It was because the defendant had a contract with a company that had its principal place of business in Va. I'm not an AOLer, but I'd be willing to bet, that choice of law and choice of forum for VA are part of their standard service agreement.
The Va. court would enter a default judgement against you. The plaintiff could then seek to have your home court uphold the verdict through the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The defendent could collaterly attack, and claim lack of personal jurisdiction, but it would be an all or nothing gamble. They may also seek to remove based on the inconvience of VA. as a venue, and or try to move it to a federal court under diversity.
I person or lawyer is still required to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the lawsuit. If its totally false within any reasonable interpretation of the law, or it does not justify a needed change in the law, they still may be sanctioned.
You do not have to be a Virginia resident to sue someone in Virginia. You can file suit in any jurisdiction REGARDLESS of where your residence may be. The test for personal jurisdiction is applied to the defendant.
Even though Virginia says that it is so, it may not be the last word. The defendant could no show, and collaterly attack the verdict in his home jurisdiction for lack of due process and not subject to subject matter jurisdiction.
Would we have to sacrifice relativity for a fixed frame to measure FTL? One could certainly model an infinite n-dimensional system, whereby within any given dimension all measurements were relative to its cohabitants. A unified relative constant could exist for each frame and only become non-essential based upon the knowledge or a more precise fixed frame (the next layer out).
Thus, any set of relative measures would still apply as long as you remained within a single dimension. The knowledge of the (next) absolute frame of reference would only make it Easier to develop physical law. It would not eliminate the system based upon relative physical law.
Maybe that's a little more mathematics oriented than physics; however, I would be interested in any thoughts.
I do not discount your premise at all. In fact, I would appreciate if someone can supply the source. I was only a physics minor, and that was many years ago. One thing I have come to believe is that quantum physics makes unbelievable advances, sometimes invalidating other premises. However, I remember being taught two things:
(1) No force is exerted without an exchange of particles. (i.e. Thus the big search for gravitons and other sub-atomic particles)
(2) All information may be encoded in binary streams. Its efficiency is a measure of the significance of each digit.
I always inferred that as a result, information could not be transfered without a medium, and thus (at least in three dimensional terms) would always be limited by the speed of light.
I must admit; that I am a natural skeptic on time-travel and faster-than-light velocity. Maybe its because they were the only static immutable laws that I could cling to. I am fascinated, and would enjoy more information about the information, particle bonding that you discussed.
Everyone does not necessarily believe they are doing the right thing. In fact, many people knowingly act against their own and/or society's system of ethics for hedonistic purposes.
Your point is well taken. Action is needed to come up with a solution. Realizing their is a problem, can be the first step. Engaging in a my problem is worse than your problem debate will have little utility.
(If you think I'm wrong. -- My daddy is bigger than your daddy, and he'll come beat you up)
Sometimes the source is very important. I don't read a music review and not expect to see superlatives or flames. In fact, a review that offers objective kindness is generally referred to as luke warm. Conversely, I don't expect a scientific study to use hyperbole in publishing its results.
If a conservative, well-respective political columnist would write the same things, with the same flare, it would raise an entirely different reaction.
I believe her white males are evil inference is just overglorifed art. Although I would necessarily agree with the premise, a viable point would be were to we focus limited resources in dealing with multiple problems. Should we spend our time and visibility trying to eliminate drive by shootings, which arguably exact a greater toll on society, or on teenage persecution.
Even so, I'm not sure that it boils down to such an economist point of view. Solutions to problems, most often have larger unforeseen positive effects. Promoting and empowering social equity may solve many domestic problems.
I am not at all an advocate for the oppression of any class of people, but I do not think taking the problem to the US Court system is the answer.
First and foremost, I agree with the reformists. Changes need to be made in the structure of our school systems. Interests and talents should be encourage whether they are social, athletic, or intellectual.
Taking the action to the court will not necessarily meet with success. Our legal system is not an absolute pillar of equality. It suffers from the same in-crowd bigotry as any and all forums. A jury of your peers or a judge is just as likely to react with the same prejudice alleged of teachers. Furthermore, defense attorneys are professional bullies. Going through the trial could make the high school treatment look like a vacation at Disneyland.
Its also way too expensive a forum. To use your example, a threat to kill is not necessarily an assault. The assailant would have to intend to cause the apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. A threat to kill unaccompanied by any overt act would probably not be an assault. (It could rise to be an intentional infliction of emotional distress). In order to weave around this minefield, you would need an advocate that probably cost big $$$.
Corporations and colleges have had success in building grievance review boards. With the proper oversight and representation, many have met with success. I think empowering the individuals to deal with their own problems poses a better solution. If you swing to far in punishing the oppressors, they become oppressed (i.e. - mandatory counseling for a thirteen year old football player because he makes a single deragotory remark to another). By no means, would I want to subject myself or my child to a tyranical, all-powerful principal.
As best I can analyze the hellmouth respondants, they are crying for equity -- not retailation. If we can empower them to sanction without overtly punishing their oppressors, we can achieve the equity they seek.
Representation would be the hardest hurdle. I don't think anyone wants to see a high school, with a jock party and geek party; however, an oversight committee could monitor the system, and ensure the equal representation was achieved based upon the standards of the high school community.
Slashdot Mirror
I see where you are coming from, but the electron theorum is not the test. Its whether someone has minimum contacts with a state, avail themselves of the law and commerce of the state so that they could reasonable foresee that they might be sued based on their actions.
You make a deal with AOL -- they are in Virginia. Most likely their servers are there too. You direct an attack at a VA resident using the service and equipment provided by AOL. This is pretty substantial. It isn't a case where the message ends up in VA. Its pretty much a directed action.
The case was decided in Federal Court based on the diversity of the parties. Most all torts are state matters. I missed the arrest part; that would be kind of odd.
They don't have to go. They can stay at home and have a default judgement entered against them. If they do not feel that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in VA, they can collaterly attack the judgement in Texas. If they lose on this issue, they lose on everything b/c the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution requires states to recognize other states judgements.
SPAM and electronic counter measures. (just joking)
Your right, its not the different. However, just b/c the paper was sold in Va. does not mean that you would be subject to jurisdiction. If it reaches VA on the stream of commerce, and you did not reach out to the forum state, then you could possibly avoid jurisdiction. If the paper had a large circulation in VA you might be libel even if published in another sovereign state (i.e. Washington Post).
Convenience of forum is from the standpoint of the defendant, since they are in a position to lose liberty or property. In a counter-claim action, its the original defendant that matters.
The other side of the statement is something to the affect of "...all issues may be properly adjudicated." This swings it back into VA, because the action, evidence and most of the witnesses would be in VA.
Another first year survivor, who just finished a Civil Procedure exam.
Per your (1) response, your analogy is not quite on point. Your example has Canada passing a law that affects Floridians in Florida. The jurisdictional question deals with foreign persons committing an action in Virginia that affects Virginians.
It does have merit. Consider a pharmaceutical company in California that makes a deadly drug that's marketed to Nebraska. Someone in Nebraska dies. Shouldn't the California company face Nebraska penalties.
This is the case here. There was no landmark decision about electronic location. It merely states that a Texas citizen reached out to make contact with a Virginia company. It used the services of the Virginia company in a negligently liable fashion, which harmed a resident. They should have anticipated that since they availed themselves of Virginia laws and commerce that they should have to face penalties in that jurisdiction.
Long arm statutes are necessary b/c our legal theory state that courts have no power until the legislature grants them power. All states have long arm statutes to enumerate certain powers of the court, or grant them all power that the consititution does not strictly reserve for the federal government (i.e. bankrupcy, patent and copyright, etc.)
Not a lawyer, but a student of such.
A person can make a motion based on improper venue. Venue is generally decided by:
(1) The location of one of the defendants, if all defendants reside in the same state.
(2) The place where the action occurred
(3) Any venue where the defendant may be reached, if neither of the above apply.
Number two is probably the winner. They can still file a motion, b/c due process requires foreseeability. The circuit judge has said its foreseeable. The might ask for certiori to the Supreme Court.
1. You could no-show and default the judgement to the plaintiff. This is a tort action, so you are not facing criminal charges.
2. the soverign state of VA has jurisdiction b/c the AOLer purposely availed themselves of the benefit of VA laws by reaching out and making a contract to a VA corporation, AOL. As for anyone running a server in VA -- it probably wouldn't apply. As for any ISP incorporated in VA -- I'd watch myself.
A foreign state would not extradite you unless you committed a crime in their state. This is a tort action. If you don't show, they enter a default judgement against you. The plaintiff would take it to your home state where under the full faith and credit clause of the constitution, your state would enforce the judgement.
I am sure these same types of problems existed in the early days of radio. The US solution was the FCC. I'm not sure the Inet needs that type of regulation.
Or you can collaterly attack in your home jurisdiction. Although this is an all or nothing gamble, as VA would issue a default judgement against you if you no show.
Or better yet, try to negotiate a deal with your ISP so that your home state's law will apply to all disputes whether in contract or in tort, and also set your home state as the choice of venue for all disputes. Top it off with an agreement for the ISP to indemnify you for any and all actions arising out of the agreement.
If you pull this off, give me a buzz, b/c I would like for you to negotiate my next contract.
I don't think precedent has been set for electronic storage. If you contract for electronic storage with an individual in another state. You may be subject to that state's jurisdiction if the crime or tort is related to the material stored on the server.
This really isn't anything new. I believe the last landmark case on personal jurisdiction based on contacts by contract was decided in '73.
I agree with the other post about suing in other jurisdictions. The defendant has to object to personal jurisdiction, or else collaterally attack it in their home state. Thus, I could go run an initiate a suit against anyone, in any state, serve them with process, and get a default judgement if they no show.
It won't do much good unless I can have someone enforce it.
Per some of my earlier posts. The most likely reason for jurisdiction is an AOLer reaches out to make contact with the forum state by virtue of its contract with the ISP. Burger King has done this with a Michigan franchisee, and set a landmark case for personal jurisdiction.
In contrast, an advertiser in a National Publication does not generally subject itself to jurisdiction to every place where it is circulated. They may, however, have jurisdiction based on where the publisher is located.
If you specifically target a forum state. (i.e. Web site of naked people from Nebraska); you will likely have sufficient contacts.
I think packet routing would fall under the advertising category.
Unless the jurisdiction question is overturned, it probably means that any spammer who uses AOL as an ISP can be sued in Virginia. It does not necessarily mean that anyone who spams to AOL can be sued in VA.
In order for jurisdictional minimum contacts to be met, the defendant USUALLY has to seek out activity in the forum state. If they spam to a list server, it might be below the threshold.
Its most likely that the persons contract with AOL subjected them to jurisdiction.
I agree with your premise, but I disagree with you on three counts. First, libel and slander are not crimes. At best they are torts, and the most you can ask is that the offended person is put back into a state as if the action had never occurred. A libel should never punished as criminal.
Second, I know I'm in a minority, but I feel the constitution does give you the right to even slander and libel. I agree with Hugo Black that when the constution says, "Congress will pass no law..." they mean NO law.
Finally, the issue wasn't libel, it was pornography, which is a community standard. Libel requires proof of harm. Pornography laws carry no such requirement.
As for the jurisdictional aspect, the same rules apply that go for all other forms of mass communication. In US Jurisprudence, a person must have minimum contacts with the state in order for in not to violate their constitutional right of due process.
In this case, it was not b/c a person in VA read the material that caused the minimum contact. It was because the defendant had a contract with a company that had its principal place of business in Va. I'm not an AOLer, but I'd be willing to bet, that choice of law and choice of forum for VA are part of their standard service agreement.
The Va. court would enter a default judgement against you. The plaintiff could then seek to have your home court uphold the verdict through the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. The defendent could collaterly attack, and claim lack of personal jurisdiction, but it would be an all or nothing gamble.
They may also seek to remove based on the inconvience of VA. as a venue, and or try to move it to a federal court under diversity.
I person or lawyer is still required to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the lawsuit. If its totally false within any reasonable interpretation of the law, or it does not justify a needed change in the law, they still may be sanctioned.
You do not have to be a Virginia resident to sue someone in Virginia. You can file suit in any jurisdiction REGARDLESS of where your residence may be. The test for personal jurisdiction is applied to the defendant.
Even though Virginia says that it is so, it may not be the last word. The defendant could no show, and collaterly attack the verdict in his home jurisdiction for lack of due process and not subject to subject matter jurisdiction.
Would we have to sacrifice relativity for a fixed frame to measure FTL? One could certainly model an infinite n-dimensional system, whereby within any given dimension all measurements were relative to its cohabitants. A unified relative constant could exist for each frame and only become non-essential based upon the knowledge or a more precise fixed frame (the next layer out).
Thus, any set of relative measures would still apply as long as you remained within a single dimension. The knowledge of the (next) absolute frame of reference would only make it Easier to develop physical law. It would not eliminate the system based upon relative physical law.
Maybe that's a little more mathematics oriented than physics; however, I would be interested in any thoughts.
I do not discount your premise at all. In fact, I would appreciate if someone can supply the source. I was only a physics minor, and that was many years ago. One thing I have come to believe is that quantum physics makes unbelievable advances, sometimes invalidating other premises. However, I remember being taught two things:
(1) No force is exerted without an exchange of particles. (i.e. Thus the big search for gravitons and other sub-atomic particles)
(2) All information may be encoded in binary streams. Its efficiency is a measure of the significance of each digit.
I always inferred that as a result, information could not be transfered without a medium, and thus (at least in three dimensional terms) would always be limited by the speed of light.
I must admit; that I am a natural skeptic on time-travel and faster-than-light velocity. Maybe its because they were the only static immutable laws that I could cling to. I am fascinated, and would enjoy more information about the information, particle bonding that you discussed.
Everyone does not necessarily believe they are doing the right thing. In fact, many people knowingly act against their own and/or society's system of ethics for hedonistic purposes.
Your point is well taken. Action is needed to come up with a solution. Realizing their is a problem, can be the first step. Engaging in a my problem is worse than your problem debate will have little utility.
(If you think I'm wrong. -- My daddy is bigger than your daddy, and he'll come beat you up)
Sometimes the source is very important. I don't read a music review and not expect to see superlatives or flames. In fact, a review that offers objective kindness is generally referred to as luke warm. Conversely, I don't expect a scientific study to use hyperbole in publishing its results.
If a conservative, well-respective political columnist would write the same things, with the same flare, it would raise an entirely different reaction.
I believe her white males are evil inference is just overglorifed art. Although I would necessarily agree with the premise, a viable point would be were to we focus limited resources in dealing with multiple problems. Should we spend our time and visibility trying to eliminate drive by shootings, which arguably exact a greater toll on society, or on teenage persecution.
Even so, I'm not sure that it boils down to such an economist point of view. Solutions to problems, most often have larger unforeseen positive effects. Promoting and empowering social equity may solve many domestic problems.
I am not at all an advocate for the oppression of any class of people, but I do not think taking the problem to the US Court system is the answer.
First and foremost, I agree with the reformists. Changes need to be made in the structure of our school systems. Interests and talents should be encourage whether they are social, athletic, or intellectual.
Taking the action to the court will not necessarily meet with success. Our legal system is not an absolute pillar of equality. It suffers from the same in-crowd bigotry as any and all forums. A jury of your peers or a judge is just as likely to react with the same prejudice alleged of teachers. Furthermore, defense attorneys are professional bullies. Going through the trial could make the high school treatment look like a vacation at Disneyland.
Its also way too expensive a forum. To use your example, a threat to kill is not necessarily an assault. The assailant would have to intend to cause the apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact. A threat to kill unaccompanied by any overt act would probably not be an assault. (It could rise to be an intentional infliction of emotional distress). In order to weave around this minefield, you would need an advocate that probably cost big $$$.
Corporations and colleges have had success in building grievance review boards. With the proper oversight and representation, many have met with success. I think empowering the individuals to deal with their own problems poses a better solution. If you swing to far in punishing the oppressors, they become oppressed (i.e. - mandatory counseling for a thirteen year old football player because he makes a single deragotory remark to another). By no means, would I want to subject myself or my child to a tyranical, all-powerful principal.
As best I can analyze the hellmouth respondants, they are crying for equity -- not retailation. If we can empower them to sanction without overtly punishing their oppressors, we can achieve the equity they seek.
Representation would be the hardest hurdle. I don't think anyone wants to see a high school, with a jock party and geek party; however, an oversight committee could monitor the system, and ensure the equal representation was achieved based upon the standards of the high school community.
Anyway, that's my two cents.