Looks like it's time for a minor change of tactics. I don't know the exact legal term for suing the lawfirms representing SCO for abusing the legal process, but that's exctly what need to be done. We need to attack the problem at it's source.
- Have linux users file suit against the SCO lawyers for abuse of process in the state, federal judicial district/foreign country they reside in. Make SCOs legal team file responses in every juridiction in the world.
- Users should file complaints with the American Bar Association as well as the state bar in the state they reside for abuse of process. Start the ball rolling for an investigation against SCOs legal team. Making the lawyers defend themselves in 50 + 1 investigations by the various State/National Bar ought to make SCO's lawyers realize the enormity of the beast they have roused by attacking open source software users.
I most certainly can rebut the argument the 5 US Supreme Court Justices in question, and have stated it multiple times. Because there was was more than one Florida law passed by the Florida legislature that was in effect in Dec 2000 regarding Florida voting process, because these multiple laws did not include clauses which invalidated previous legislation, and because these laws contradicted each other in many places, an interpratation of the laws by the FLA judicial branch was required.
The FLA Supreme Court was forced to act because of the mess the FLA legislature had created by crafting very poor legislation. The 5 justices in question CANNOT claim to support states rights and still intervene in the FLA Supreme Court's right to interpret FLA law. Interpreting existing law is the most basic function of the judicial system.
The 5 Justices in question (and your argument, swillden) relies on a premise that the Florida Legislature had written a single clear piece of legislation that the FLA Supreme Court somehow overturned. That premise is completely false, swillden.
In reality, the Florida Legislature had passed multiple pieces of legislation in the subject in question with conflicting regulation and procedures on the exact same voting process. Therefore, the real situation was that the FLA Supreme Court was forced to act because the FLA legislature had created a mess that required interpertation by the courts in order to figure out what was supposed to be done. The role of interpretation of existing law is clearly delegated to the judicial system in Florida, the Federal Government, as well as every other state in the country. Go look it up swillden. There is not a single court system in America that does not have the role of interprtation of existing law delegated to the court system.
The FLA Legislature made a mess of multiple laws which contradicted each other and the FLA Supreme Court acted completely properly in it's role as the interpreter of existing statutes.
swillden, you should stop repeating Rush Limbaugh's talking points. Limbaugh accurary record is very poor. The neo-cons would like to revise history and make people believe the FLA Supreme Court intervened and tried to overturn an exist clear piece of legislation, but it is simply false no matter how many times it gets repeated. The FLA Supreme Court acted exactly as specified by the FLA Constitution in attempting to properly interpret the conflicting messes the FLA legislature created.
First of all, you can't claim to be a supporter of states rights and then reach into a state and intervene in it's ability to determine an issue like voting process within that state. A state's right's activist cannot claim they are supporting states rights by supporting one of the branches of a state's government (legislative) while undercutting another branch of said state government (judicial). The Florida Supreme Court is designated by the Florida Constituation as the branch of Florida Government that has the power to arbitrate and review Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court never undermined legislative authority. The Florida Legislature undermined it's own authority by passing conflicting statutes about the same subject and the Florida Supreme Court was then well withing the authority granted it by the Florida State Constitution to determine which of the conflicting statutes the legislature passed appied in that situation and make clear what the legislature had muddied so badly.
A proponent of state's rights would clearly see the Florida Supreme Court acted correctly a well within it granted authority by making sense of the multiple statutes the Florida legislature had passed applying to the Florida voting process. Only an advocate of extreme judicial activism and federal intervention into a state's right to determine it's own laws would dare to reach into the Florida govenmental process and create new law for the State of Florida. That is what the 5 Justices in question did when they stopped the recount process.
The 4 other justices in question could not be considered bias because their history of opinions always leaned more toward judicial activism and federal intervention in states govenmental processes. By ruling on the question, they continued their past pattern of judicial opinions. They acted completely in character with their previous rulings from the bench.
The 5 Justices in question states rights past history demanded they refuse to allow the Supreme Court to hear Bush v. Gore, re-affirming the FLA Supremem Court.
With the Justices in question acting so against decades of their own personal precident on the issue of states rights, they confirmed their bias.
It is when the reasoning used in the opinion directly contradicted decades of opinions the 5 mentioned Justices wrote in previous judicial opinions and case law. On the basis of the Gore v. Bush opinion, one is forced to conclude either the Gore v. Bush decision was invalid and arrived at due to extra-judicial reasons (i.e. illegal biases they should have recused themselves from the making a decision on the case on account of), or decades of opinions and decisions, almost their entire judicial decision history needs to be overturned.
The 5 mentioned Justices clearly betrayed things beyond the scope of law lead to the Gore v. Bush decision. Judges have been impeached for far less evidence of bias in decisions far less important. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that things completely outside laws enacted by our representatives, case law, legal opinion and evidence could lead to a decision on the SCO-IBM case.
Please remember that the 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn the FL Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore were forced to write an opinion in that case that completely went against their entire careers of opinions supporting States Rights.
Regardless of how you feel about either the issues in Bush v. Gore or States Rights, you have to admit the 5 Supreme Court Justices who supported the Bush position argued from the position of extreme federal interventionists in doing so. If five Supreme Court Justices went to those lengths already, completely new case law isn't that much of a stretch. Remember that the case which created corporate personhood created that concept out of whole cloth. That was completely new case law at the time, too.
We have to recognize that it may not matter what the evidence in this case is. Linux and the "Open Source" movement is the greatest treat to the fiefdoms of the world's financial elite since Marx. These elitists have built their power base on owning everything that matters to the functioning of society. Open source cannot be owned by them, so therefore they must eliminate it.
Always remember, follow the money and find out who benefits to find out the real answers you seek.
It most certainly would. We aren't talking lotto tickets here. Securities are not bought anonomously.
I don't care if the name on an account is Osama Bin Laden or Ozzy Osborne, we need to look at the transactions that took place with the accounts. If the options were purchased as part of a hedging or other legit trading strategy, that will be apparant by the rest of the contents of their portfolio on the date of those transactions. However, if there is nothing there but trading on the 9/11 affected securities on 9/10, then you have what is known as a lead in the investigation and closer scrutiny of the individuals would follow.
They also announced they ended the investigation a couple of weeks after they started it and stated that the options were not cashed in, acting as if the act of not cashing the options in prevented them from finding out who originally bought the options.
They have never released any information on the parties who purchased the put options on the airlines and the company that covered the insurance on the WTC. Info is just sitting there waiting to be discovered on this. It would be very simple to track down, but it has never been done. This cover story that the options have never been claimed is rubbish. The options had to be bought from a trading account or brokerage somewhere in the system. It's like saying you have a check in your hand that hasn't been cashed and claiming that you can't look at the account number on the bottom of the check and tell who wrote the check.
Someone who doesn't have the courage to even post their own id on a message board could never stand up so someone with the courage, stamina and pain threshold of Lance. He'd just absorb blows until your arms got tired, then backkick you for the entire month of August.
This Crawford Pig Farmer is like a second-grader creating the game "Ooey-Gooey" by pouring water over a loaf of bread and throwing the slices at a wall to watch them *splat*. He hasn't even reached the level of emotional maturity necessary to generate the phrase "oooooooooo.... ahhhhhhh" at a fireworks show.
An individual has the freedom to associate guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Government does not have to freedom for it to associate guaranteed. Government must act as a neutral actor and ignore any and all behavior that are legal but distasteful to itself.
A couple of Alexa links...
OpenBSD
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? &range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&url=http://ww w.OpenBSD.org/#top
FreeBSD
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=&url=http://www.freebsd.org/
Both pages are trending up.
Slashdot Mirror
Looks like it's time for a minor change of tactics. I don't know the exact legal term for suing the lawfirms representing SCO for abusing the legal process, but that's exctly what need to be done. We need to attack the problem at it's source. - Have linux users file suit against the SCO lawyers for abuse of process in the state, federal judicial district/foreign country they reside in. Make SCOs legal team file responses in every juridiction in the world. - Users should file complaints with the American Bar Association as well as the state bar in the state they reside for abuse of process. Start the ball rolling for an investigation against SCOs legal team. Making the lawyers defend themselves in 50 + 1 investigations by the various State/National Bar ought to make SCO's lawyers realize the enormity of the beast they have roused by attacking open source software users.
I most certainly can rebut the argument the 5 US Supreme Court Justices in question, and have stated it multiple times. Because there was was more than one Florida law passed by the Florida legislature that was in effect in Dec 2000 regarding Florida voting process, because these multiple laws did not include clauses which invalidated previous legislation, and because these laws contradicted each other in many places, an interpratation of the laws by the FLA judicial branch was required. The FLA Supreme Court was forced to act because of the mess the FLA legislature had created by crafting very poor legislation. The 5 justices in question CANNOT claim to support states rights and still intervene in the FLA Supreme Court's right to interpret FLA law. Interpreting existing law is the most basic function of the judicial system.
The 5 Justices in question (and your argument, swillden) relies on a premise that the Florida Legislature had written a single clear piece of legislation that the FLA Supreme Court somehow overturned. That premise is completely false, swillden. In reality, the Florida Legislature had passed multiple pieces of legislation in the subject in question with conflicting regulation and procedures on the exact same voting process. Therefore, the real situation was that the FLA Supreme Court was forced to act because the FLA legislature had created a mess that required interpertation by the courts in order to figure out what was supposed to be done. The role of interpretation of existing law is clearly delegated to the judicial system in Florida, the Federal Government, as well as every other state in the country. Go look it up swillden. There is not a single court system in America that does not have the role of interprtation of existing law delegated to the court system. The FLA Legislature made a mess of multiple laws which contradicted each other and the FLA Supreme Court acted completely properly in it's role as the interpreter of existing statutes. swillden, you should stop repeating Rush Limbaugh's talking points. Limbaugh accurary record is very poor. The neo-cons would like to revise history and make people believe the FLA Supreme Court intervened and tried to overturn an exist clear piece of legislation, but it is simply false no matter how many times it gets repeated. The FLA Supreme Court acted exactly as specified by the FLA Constitution in attempting to properly interpret the conflicting messes the FLA legislature created.
First of all, you can't claim to be a supporter of states rights and then reach into a state and intervene in it's ability to determine an issue like voting process within that state. A state's right's activist cannot claim they are supporting states rights by supporting one of the branches of a state's government (legislative) while undercutting another branch of said state government (judicial). The Florida Supreme Court is designated by the Florida Constituation as the branch of Florida Government that has the power to arbitrate and review Florida law. The Florida Supreme Court never undermined legislative authority. The Florida Legislature undermined it's own authority by passing conflicting statutes about the same subject and the Florida Supreme Court was then well withing the authority granted it by the Florida State Constitution to determine which of the conflicting statutes the legislature passed appied in that situation and make clear what the legislature had muddied so badly. A proponent of state's rights would clearly see the Florida Supreme Court acted correctly a well within it granted authority by making sense of the multiple statutes the Florida legislature had passed applying to the Florida voting process. Only an advocate of extreme judicial activism and federal intervention into a state's right to determine it's own laws would dare to reach into the Florida govenmental process and create new law for the State of Florida. That is what the 5 Justices in question did when they stopped the recount process. The 4 other justices in question could not be considered bias because their history of opinions always leaned more toward judicial activism and federal intervention in states govenmental processes. By ruling on the question, they continued their past pattern of judicial opinions. They acted completely in character with their previous rulings from the bench. The 5 Justices in question states rights past history demanded they refuse to allow the Supreme Court to hear Bush v. Gore, re-affirming the FLA Supremem Court. With the Justices in question acting so against decades of their own personal precident on the issue of states rights, they confirmed their bias.
No... I've never had much respect for lawyers, and Boies actions here just confirmed that opinion.
It is when the reasoning used in the opinion directly contradicted decades of opinions the 5 mentioned Justices wrote in previous judicial opinions and case law. On the basis of the Gore v. Bush opinion, one is forced to conclude either the Gore v. Bush decision was invalid and arrived at due to extra-judicial reasons (i.e. illegal biases they should have recused themselves from the making a decision on the case on account of), or decades of opinions and decisions, almost their entire judicial decision history needs to be overturned. The 5 mentioned Justices clearly betrayed things beyond the scope of law lead to the Gore v. Bush decision. Judges have been impeached for far less evidence of bias in decisions far less important. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that that things completely outside laws enacted by our representatives, case law, legal opinion and evidence could lead to a decision on the SCO-IBM case.
Please remember that the 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn the FL Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore were forced to write an opinion in that case that completely went against their entire careers of opinions supporting States Rights. Regardless of how you feel about either the issues in Bush v. Gore or States Rights, you have to admit the 5 Supreme Court Justices who supported the Bush position argued from the position of extreme federal interventionists in doing so. If five Supreme Court Justices went to those lengths already, completely new case law isn't that much of a stretch. Remember that the case which created corporate personhood created that concept out of whole cloth. That was completely new case law at the time, too. We have to recognize that it may not matter what the evidence in this case is. Linux and the "Open Source" movement is the greatest treat to the fiefdoms of the world's financial elite since Marx. These elitists have built their power base on owning everything that matters to the functioning of society. Open source cannot be owned by them, so therefore they must eliminate it. Always remember, follow the money and find out who benefits to find out the real answers you seek.
It most certainly would. We aren't talking lotto tickets here. Securities are not bought anonomously. I don't care if the name on an account is Osama Bin Laden or Ozzy Osborne, we need to look at the transactions that took place with the accounts. If the options were purchased as part of a hedging or other legit trading strategy, that will be apparant by the rest of the contents of their portfolio on the date of those transactions. However, if there is nothing there but trading on the 9/11 affected securities on 9/10, then you have what is known as a lead in the investigation and closer scrutiny of the individuals would follow.
They also announced they ended the investigation a couple of weeks after they started it and stated that the options were not cashed in, acting as if the act of not cashing the options in prevented them from finding out who originally bought the options.
They have never released any information on the parties who purchased the put options on the airlines and the company that covered the insurance on the WTC. Info is just sitting there waiting to be discovered on this. It would be very simple to track down, but it has never been done. This cover story that the options have never been claimed is rubbish. The options had to be bought from a trading account or brokerage somewhere in the system. It's like saying you have a check in your hand that hasn't been cashed and claiming that you can't look at the account number on the bottom of the check and tell who wrote the check.
Someone who doesn't have the courage to even post their own id on a message board could never stand up so someone with the courage, stamina and pain threshold of Lance. He'd just absorb blows until your arms got tired, then backkick you for the entire month of August.
I tell you what...you tell Lance Armestrong he's gay and then when he's done, I'll squegee what's left of you onto a stretcher.
You get the source code with linux. You don't with window$. That was easy.
Gates is trying to figure out how to charge windows users for the crashes, too.
I can see either Rickman from Robin Hood yelling this. I can also see Gary Oldman doing this like he played his role in The Fifth Element. Hmmm...
This Crawford Pig Farmer is like a second-grader creating the game "Ooey-Gooey" by pouring water over a loaf of bread and throwing the slices at a wall to watch them *splat*. He hasn't even reached the level of emotional maturity necessary to generate the phrase "oooooooooo.... ahhhhhhh" at a fireworks show.
An individual has the freedom to associate guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Government does not have to freedom for it to associate guaranteed. Government must act as a neutral actor and ignore any and all behavior that are legal but distasteful to itself.
A couple of Alexa links... OpenBSD http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? &range=3m&size=medium&compare_sites=&url=http://ww w.OpenBSD.org/#top
FreeBSD
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details? q=&url=http://www.freebsd.org/
Both pages are trending up.
*shickt* *sssssthwack* *thunk *thunkthunk* *ZOT-rumble-rumble*