It was deliberate... it caused the defendants to burn time and money.
Wrong.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint is only required to have "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Prior to 2007, this had been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that the complaint would only fail if, on its face, the pleader could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.
In 2007, the Supreme Court tightened up these standards in the two cases Judge Pechman referenced in her ruling. Now, to comply with Rule 8, a pleader must allege enough specific facts in support of his claim so that relief is more than speculative. In other words, "Staples, you infringed my patent, you bastards!" no longer cuts the mustard.
Prior to 2007, though, the type of boilerplate pleading that Paul Allen's lawyers submitted was just fine. They continued to get away with it until, as now, someone decided to call them out on it. The suggestion probably came from a summer associate who mentioned, "argue Twombly and Iqbal" in passing to his boss.
Just doing my part to correct some of the rampant legal illiteracy on/.
The boy is already dead, don't you get it? Sure, he's breathing, but he's almost certainly in diapers and is most likely being fed through a tube. If your idiotic religion says that preserving this kind of "life" will help you get closer to your nonexistent god through suffering, fine. This boy, however, is being tortured in the name of said idiotic religion and probably has no say in the matter. That is wrong and this doctor should have his licence pulled.
Having such a disease renders the boy ineligible for a heart transplant . . .
your name happens to be Mickey Mantle, eh?
Remember that? He got a new liver after he nearly drank himself to death. Normally a transplant committee wouldn't even open the file in such a circumstance, but money talks.
caused by the Duchenne MD? Yes. Now this poor boy will have to live another 25 years locked in a body he has no control over. I'm sorry, but that's not life, hell, that's not even existence. That sounds more like, well, Hell.
Having such a disease renders the boy ineligible for a heart transplant, meaning almost certain death without an alternative solution.
Well, duh.
Dr. Amodeo found such an alternative in the form of a 90-gram, fully-robotic heart that took 10 hours to fit inside the boy's left ventricle. It is a permanent solution offering as much as 25 years of life and is powered by a battery worn as a belt."
What could POSSIBLY go wrong, eh?
This being very Catholic Italy, I have my suspicions that this whole exercise is being undertaken out of some perverse familial desire to keep the boy alive long enough for him to sire a male offspring, a la the case of the Boy in the Bubble.
Ms. Kanae was present at the hearing on this motion and admitted that she had assisted Mr. Smallwood in the preparation of his filing . . . Although she was not prepared to represent Mr. Smallwood at the hearing and argue on his behalf, Ms. Kanae has now appeared in this action, and the Court is confident that she will sign all future pleadings that she prepares (as she properly did for Plaintiff's Second Supplemental Mem.).
He's not pro se, in other words. He's represented by counsel.
You are correct, though, that as a pro se, he would have gotten creamed. The judge initially dismissed his complaint sua sponte for failure to properly allege federal jurisdiction. No way is this guy a lawyer.
What other jobs? We're talking here about a country with near double-digit reported unemployment (the real rate is probably a lot closer to 25%) and whose largest employer is Wal-Mart. Exactly where are these guys going to find work at all, much less any that will make them prematurely jump ship?
I suppose they could be prison guards. That's about the only growth industry left in America nowadays.
Actually, busting through the ice is hazardous to your launch mission, since you have to make a SHIT-TON of noise before you can ever open your missile hatches.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those birds be landing over LA, NYC, and DC while you were still deciding what to do about the mysterious noise you heard in the Arctic?
Call it fanboyism, but I do not think Linux is such a terrible operating system that it would see no use whatsoever, or practically so.
Hmm, let's see here . . .
In this corner: Spend a weekend recompiling my kernel two dozen times to get some piece of hardware to work the way it's supposed to.
In this corner: Plug it in and it does what the hell I need it to do, no kernel recompiles required, thus allowing me to spend the rest of my time doing other things I enjoy.
If you think I'm trolling, no less an authority than JWZagrees.
I agree, Linux is a great operating system, but even as far as it has come, it's still not ready to be a full-time desktop OS that could replace Windows, much less Mac.
Can someone (who knows what the hell they're talking about, and can give cites) please tell us what the actual Federal law is that controls this situation.
You're an idiot blowhard. If you ever were actually in the situation you describe, you would wet your pants followed by confessing to being bin Laden if that's what the cop suspected.
Same reading assignment I gave to another pallid/.'er occupant of his parents' basement: Terry v. Ohio. The police have the right to detain you for a reasonable period of time if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you have been involved in the commission of a crime. And yes, Virginia, they have the right to use force to detain you.
"Am I under arrest?"
"No? Then shoot me, mother f*cker, or get out of the way."
Bzzt, wrong answer. The correct answer is, "officer, am I free to go?" What you're doing is known in the trade as "flunking the attitude test." It is also known as "contempt of cop" and is likely to earn you some "street justice."
And I'm headed for the door. And ANYONE who lays a hand on me is guilty of assault, and I plan to protect myself.
By the tone of your post, I'm assuming that you intend to protect yourself with a firearm. Guess what - you've just escalated the situation from nothing to you being clad in a diaper strapped to a gurney saying your last words right before receiving a megadose of animal traquilisers in full of the parents whose basement you live in at the age of 40. All because you're a typical American jackass who thinks he's Rambo and who thinks a gun is the solution to every problem. Hope you enjoyed your last meal.
What a crock! If you are detained from going about your business, you are ARRESTED!!
Wrong. Detained != arrested.
Reading assignment: Terry v. Ohio. If you've watched Law & Order, you've probably heard of a "Terry stop." That is what this is referring to. See my previous comment re: posting to/. from your parents' basement in between masturbation sessions to Ayn Rand.
This kind of crap really makes me embarrassed to be an American...
..If you voted for Comrade Obama, check back with me in a couple years.. I'm betting you won't like him then...
This ignorant dreck in your sig makes me glad I don't have to share a country you with anymore. Unfortunately, I have to share a very long "undefended" border. Now, if there was something I could do about that, I would. Those of us in touch with reality know that Obama is about as far as you can get from a "comrade." The truth is, the Obama administration is really Bush's third term.
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
The latest example of the legal illiteracy that pervades/. This is a classic example of the kind of uninformed blather that comes out of the mouth of someone posting to/. from his parents' basement in between rounds of masturbating to Ayn Rand or some other losertarian fantasy/fallacy. The rest of us who have real jobs know that the world, and especially the legal system, is ever-so-slightly more complicated.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. At all. Anyone can be searched, questioned or detained at any time for any reason at the border or the "functional equivalent of the border." And in a country of laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to say what the Constitution says.
All enactments of Congress are presumed constitutional. That presumption holds unless and until the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, say otherwise.
May I suggest an "Intro to Law" or "Law for Nonlawyers" course at your local community college?
On top of that you . . . are forced to store the guns locked, broken down and apart from the ammo.
That's what they teach you to do in gun safety class, no?
Well, when your kid shoots himself with it, at least he won't grow up to be a losertarian moron with male potency issues. When the intruder you fear so much shoots you with it, or steals it and uses it in a crime, how will you feel?
Compared to an American, you are disarmed.
And this is a problem . . . why?
You effectively can only use your guns for sport, and using them to protect your home, your family or yourself is pretty much impossible.
Maybe they don't need to because their crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's? Maybe they're not paranoid that someone is going to break into their trailer and steal their Zenith black-and-white TV and tinfoil rabbit ears? I find it interesting that the gun nuts who complain the loudest actually have the least to protect.
Not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
I was referring to the right to travel. In the same sense, I have the right to travel to Europe this summer, but if I don't have the money to make the trip, I can't exercise that right, can I?
Even assuming arguendo the Second Amendment is an individual right applicable to the states (courts are still murky on this one - don't challenge me on this, you will lose as I will post the case law), the exercise of all Constitutional rights is subject to reasonable limits. Your right to free speech is subject to time and place restrictions, for example. The Fourth Amendment simply does not apply at the U.S. border or the functional equivalent thereof, even to your laptop, for another example.
So it is with the Second Amendment. Insane people do not have the right to keep and bear arms at all, nor do children, nor do felons. The reductio ad absurdum of your argument that the Second Amendment is untrammelled would be to claim that it gives you the right to bear a nuclear device, a howitzer, a tank, a machine gun or a grenade launcher. After all, the government has all of these and if you accept the argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the right of rebellion, then why shouldn't you?
You know, the ones whose motto is normally "sentence first - verdict afterward," "shoot first, ask questions later" or "hang 'em from the nearest tree"? These people who normally regard the Constitutional rights of individuals as mere "technicalities" that only benefit criminals have all turned into hairy-assed civil libertarians when it comes to a huge multinational corporation.
Applying the same arguments the right wing usually applies to criminals, particularly those with the misfortune to have dark skin or a funny accent, all of BP's assets should have been seized and should be on the auction block by now. That $75 million limitation of liability? Pah, a mere technicality. We know they're guilty, so let's put Tony on a horseback and git-a-rope!
You're citing a pro-gun website with an agenda, guncite.com. Hardly an unbiased, reputable source. Strike one.
Some of the counter-research cited on your propaganda pages was done by John R. Lott, Jr. I'm sure the fact that his position is endowed by the corporate parent of Winchester doesn't affect his objectivity in any way. Strike two.
The first point is irrelevant if the same was true before gun control was instituted.
Earlier, you were shown to be an idiot when you feebly tried to claim that the "UK's violent crime rate is nearly 5x that of the US and has only been increasing since the gun bans in the 1970s . . . " Now you're admitting that the UK's violent crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's?
This is the one strange thing I find reading slashdot being British.
Keep in mind that America is irredeemably addicted to violence. In fact, violence is a traditional American value, right along with hatred, bigotry, racism and cultural imperialism. At the same time, American society glorifies stupidity and views smart people with suspicion. Most of us ask, "what are you reading?" but in America, they ask, "why are you reading?"
[Y]et within the UK and Europe, the USA is seen as the antithesis off how to deal with guns.
Yet another very good reason for America to be the laughingstock of the world.
You do realise that over here the police do not normally carry guns and yet they are much safer than your cops?
To be fair, that's not entirely accurate. As I understand it, the front-line cops are armed only with a truncheon, but heavily armed police are only a radio call away.
-- Guns make homes less safe, not more safe. Granted, one can take issue with the oft-quoted 43x number, but the fact remains that while guns are supposed to make Americans more safe, the exact opposite turns out to be true. The only question is, how many times less safe?
Spamhaus are not located in the US. Why should they bother?
Two reasons: One, as I repeatedly pointed out, countries often do allow foreign judgments to be registered and enforced. Of course, it depends on the countries involved, but it's often easier than you think. Two, as it turns out, Spamhaus did have assets in the U.S., such as its domain name, that could be seized.
Suppose someone filed a lawsuit against you in, say, Lithuania, because they didn't like your blog or something similar. Would you care to hire a lawyer there, just to get the case dismissed? Really?
If I had assets in Lithuania, absolutely I would. If not, I'd want to know the state of the law on domesticating a Lithuanian judgment here in Canada. Domesticating a British judgment here, for example, is a trivial matter, as is domesticating a U.S. judgment. For these reasons, it is malpractice to advise someone to ignore papers they're served with.
Slashdot Mirror
It was deliberate... it caused the defendants to burn time and money.
Wrong.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a complaint is only required to have "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Prior to 2007, this had been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that the complaint would only fail if, on its face, the pleader could prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.
In 2007, the Supreme Court tightened up these standards in the two cases Judge Pechman referenced in her ruling. Now, to comply with Rule 8, a pleader must allege enough specific facts in support of his claim so that relief is more than speculative. In other words, "Staples, you infringed my patent, you bastards!" no longer cuts the mustard.
Prior to 2007, though, the type of boilerplate pleading that Paul Allen's lawyers submitted was just fine. They continued to get away with it until, as now, someone decided to call them out on it. The suggestion probably came from a summer associate who mentioned, "argue Twombly and Iqbal" in passing to his boss.
Just doing my part to correct some of the rampant legal illiteracy on /.
Now where are all of the burnout ex-military PTSD cases going to work?
The boy is already dead, don't you get it? Sure, he's breathing, but he's almost certainly in diapers and is most likely being fed through a tube. If your idiotic religion says that preserving this kind of "life" will help you get closer to your nonexistent god through suffering, fine. This boy, however, is being tortured in the name of said idiotic religion and probably has no say in the matter. That is wrong and this doctor should have his licence pulled.
Having such a disease renders the boy ineligible for a heart transplant . . .
your name happens to be Mickey Mantle, eh?
Remember that? He got a new liver after he nearly drank himself to death. Normally a transplant committee wouldn't even open the file in such a circumstance, but money talks.
caused by the Duchenne MD? Yes. Now this poor boy will have to live another 25 years locked in a body he has no control over. I'm sorry, but that's not life, hell, that's not even existence. That sounds more like, well, Hell.
Having such a disease renders the boy ineligible for a heart transplant, meaning almost certain death without an alternative solution.
Well, duh.
Dr. Amodeo found such an alternative in the form of a 90-gram, fully-robotic heart that took 10 hours to fit inside the boy's left ventricle. It is a permanent solution offering as much as 25 years of life and is powered by a battery worn as a belt."
What could POSSIBLY go wrong, eh?
This being very Catholic Italy, I have my suspicions that this whole exercise is being undertaken out of some perverse familial desire to keep the boy alive long enough for him to sire a male offspring, a la the case of the Boy in the Bubble.
Any first year law student can tell you that Rule 11 is a civil rule, not a criminal one.
I don't know why I waste my time . . .
Also from the court documents:
He's not pro se, in other words. He's represented by counsel.
You are correct, though, that as a pro se, he would have gotten creamed. The judge initially dismissed his complaint sua sponte for failure to properly allege federal jurisdiction. No way is this guy a lawyer.
What other jobs? We're talking here about a country with near double-digit reported unemployment (the real rate is probably a lot closer to 25%) and whose largest employer is Wal-Mart. Exactly where are these guys going to find work at all, much less any that will make them prematurely jump ship?
I suppose they could be prison guards. That's about the only growth industry left in America nowadays.
What other jobs?
I suppose they could be prison guards. That's about the only growth industry left in America nowadays.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't those birds be landing over LA, NYC, and DC while you were still deciding what to do about the mysterious noise you heard in the Arctic?
Hmm, let's see here . . .
In this corner: Spend a weekend recompiling my kernel two dozen times to get some piece of hardware to work the way it's supposed to.
In this corner: Plug it in and it does what the hell I need it to do, no kernel recompiles required, thus allowing me to spend the rest of my time doing other things I enjoy.
If you think I'm trolling, no less an authority than JWZ agrees.
I agree, Linux is a great operating system, but even as far as it has come, it's still not ready to be a full-time desktop OS that could replace Windows, much less Mac.
You're an idiot blowhard. If you ever were actually in the situation you describe, you would wet your pants followed by confessing to being bin Laden if that's what the cop suspected.
Same reading assignment I gave to another pallid /.'er occupant of his parents' basement: Terry v. Ohio . The police have the right to detain you for a reasonable period of time if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that you have been involved in the commission of a crime. And yes, Virginia, they have the right to use force to detain you.
Bzzt, wrong answer. The correct answer is, "officer, am I free to go?" What you're doing is known in the trade as "flunking the attitude test." It is also known as "contempt of cop" and is likely to earn you some "street justice."
By the tone of your post, I'm assuming that you intend to protect yourself with a firearm. Guess what - you've just escalated the situation from nothing to you being clad in a diaper strapped to a gurney saying your last words right before receiving a megadose of animal traquilisers in full of the parents whose basement you live in at the age of 40. All because you're a typical American jackass who thinks he's Rambo and who thinks a gun is the solution to every problem. Hope you enjoyed your last meal.
Wrong. Detained != arrested.
Reading assignment: Terry v. Ohio . If you've watched Law & Order, you've probably heard of a "Terry stop." That is what this is referring to. See my previous comment re: posting to /. from your parents' basement in between masturbation sessions to Ayn Rand.
This ignorant dreck in your sig makes me glad I don't have to share a country you with anymore. Unfortunately, I have to share a very long "undefended" border. Now, if there was something I could do about that, I would. Those of us in touch with reality know that Obama is about as far as you can get from a "comrade." The truth is, the Obama administration is really Bush's third term.
I'll bet you think he's a Kenyan Muslim too.
Funny, I don't see an "except for the border" clause in the Bill of Rights.
The latest example of the legal illiteracy that pervades /. This is a classic example of the kind of uninformed blather that comes out of the mouth of someone posting to /. from his parents' basement in between rounds of masturbating to Ayn Rand or some other losertarian fantasy/fallacy. The rest of us who have real jobs know that the world, and especially the legal system, is ever-so-slightly more complicated.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at the border. At all. Anyone can be searched, questioned or detained at any time for any reason at the border or the "functional equivalent of the border." And in a country of laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has the right to say what the Constitution says.
All enactments of Congress are presumed constitutional. That presumption holds unless and until the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, say otherwise.
May I suggest an "Intro to Law" or "Law for Nonlawyers" course at your local community college?
Dartboard pics outperform the "financial wizards."
sv_libertarian (1317837) writes:
That's what they teach you to do in gun safety class, no?
Well, when your kid shoots himself with it, at least he won't grow up to be a losertarian moron with male potency issues. When the intruder you fear so much shoots you with it, or steals it and uses it in a crime, how will you feel?
And this is a problem . . . why?
Maybe they don't need to because their crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's? Maybe they're not paranoid that someone is going to break into their trailer and steal their Zenith black-and-white TV and tinfoil rabbit ears? I find it interesting that the gun nuts who complain the loudest actually have the least to protect.
I have mod points, but I've already posted in this discussion. Damn.
Funny you mention that, though. I wonder if a gun is how a lot of these sexually frustrated males plan on getting girlfriends.
I was referring to the right to travel. In the same sense, I have the right to travel to Europe this summer, but if I don't have the money to make the trip, I can't exercise that right, can I?
Even assuming arguendo the Second Amendment is an individual right applicable to the states (courts are still murky on this one - don't challenge me on this, you will lose as I will post the case law), the exercise of all Constitutional rights is subject to reasonable limits. Your right to free speech is subject to time and place restrictions, for example. The Fourth Amendment simply does not apply at the U.S. border or the functional equivalent thereof, even to your laptop, for another example.
So it is with the Second Amendment. Insane people do not have the right to keep and bear arms at all, nor do children, nor do felons. The reductio ad absurdum of your argument that the Second Amendment is untrammelled would be to claim that it gives you the right to bear a nuclear device, a howitzer, a tank, a machine gun or a grenade launcher. After all, the government has all of these and if you accept the argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give the people the right of rebellion, then why shouldn't you?
You know, the ones whose motto is normally "sentence first - verdict afterward," "shoot first, ask questions later" or "hang 'em from the nearest tree"? These people who normally regard the Constitutional rights of individuals as mere "technicalities" that only benefit criminals have all turned into hairy-assed civil libertarians when it comes to a huge multinational corporation.
Applying the same arguments the right wing usually applies to criminals, particularly those with the misfortune to have dark skin or a funny accent, all of BP's assets should have been seized and should be on the auction block by now. That $75 million limitation of liability? Pah, a mere technicality. We know they're guilty, so let's put Tony on a horseback and git-a-rope!
Therefore people who cannot afford a safe do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Exactly. Just like people who can't afford insurance don't have the right to drive a car. It's the same principle.
You're citing a pro-gun website with an agenda, guncite.com. Hardly an unbiased, reputable source. Strike one.
Some of the counter-research cited on your propaganda pages was done by John R. Lott, Jr. I'm sure the fact that his position is endowed by the corporate parent of Winchester doesn't affect his objectivity in any way. Strike two.
Earlier, you were shown to be an idiot when you feebly tried to claim that the "UK's violent crime rate is nearly 5x that of the US and has only been increasing since the gun bans in the 1970s . . . " Now you're admitting that the UK's violent crime rate is a tiny fraction of America's?
Strike three. You fail.
Sit down.
This is the one strange thing I find reading slashdot being British.
Keep in mind that America is irredeemably addicted to violence. In fact, violence is a traditional American value, right along with hatred, bigotry, racism and cultural imperialism. At the same time, American society glorifies stupidity and views smart people with suspicion. Most of us ask, "what are you reading?" but in America, they ask, "why are you reading?"
[Y]et within the UK and Europe, the USA is seen as the antithesis off how to deal with guns.
Yet another very good reason for America to be the laughingstock of the world.
You do realise that over here the police do not normally carry guns and yet they are much safer than your cops?
To be fair, that's not entirely accurate. As I understand it, the front-line cops are armed only with a truncheon, but heavily armed police are only a radio call away.
I'm not even going to dignify that with my own response.
I'm not even going to dignify your response from disreputable, right-wing, pro-gun sources with any kind of a response.
Those of us in touch with reality, however, know the facts:
-- Nations with strict gun control laws have homicide rates that are a tiny fraction of America's.
-- Guns make homes less safe, not more safe. Granted, one can take issue with the oft-quoted 43x number, but the fact remains that while guns are supposed to make Americans more safe, the exact opposite turns out to be true. The only question is, how many times less safe?
Two reasons: One, as I repeatedly pointed out, countries often do allow foreign judgments to be registered and enforced. Of course, it depends on the countries involved, but it's often easier than you think. Two, as it turns out, Spamhaus did have assets in the U.S., such as its domain name, that could be seized.
If I had assets in Lithuania, absolutely I would. If not, I'd want to know the state of the law on domesticating a Lithuanian judgment here in Canada. Domesticating a British judgment here, for example, is a trivial matter, as is domesticating a U.S. judgment. For these reasons, it is malpractice to advise someone to ignore papers they're served with.