First, these amendments are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the U.S. Code (our national statutes). Accordingly, they effect all litigants in federal civil litigation. That will include individuals, not just companies. So, if you ever sue or are sued in federal court (relatively common--if you are suing for over $75K and the opponent lives in another state, you can likely get into federal court as opposed to state court), this rule will apply to you.
Second, the duty of retention on electronic documents is currently unclear. As is (and IANAL (yet)), under the federal rules, you have no general duty to preserve documents if you have no reason to believe that the documents will be used in litigation. Its only once you realize that you've screwed up and are likely to be sued that you need to start preservig documents. (Caveat--there may be some specific rules that I am not aware of that require a short-ish (two-year) retention period for some documents, especially documents relating to securities). So, in effect, what this rule says is you now have to hand over your IMs if they are saved, not neccessarily that you need to be saving your IMs forever,
the type of gun, while relevant, is only one factor. Or so says the 10th Cir in Parker
"Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir.2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment... was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is 'well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria."
br?
Isn't it pretty well estbalished that the federal government can abridge our rights to gun ownership, provided that it does not relate to the use or estbalishment of a well-regulated milita. Check out U.S. v. Miller,
307 U.S. 174 at 178 ("In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.")
So, the government can restrict your gun ownership if it doesn't relate to milita use, right? And what well0-regulated milita do you belong too?
Also, check out United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (same), and United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (same)
Well, according to the text of the amendment, only as long as we find it neccessary to the security of a free state to maintain a a well regulated militia.
Which would be, what, 1865?
The statue depends on the crime or injury. In my state, for example, products liabilty cases are 3 years, negligence are two years, etc. As one frequently hears, murder has no statue of limitations.
To findout what the statute of limitations is for you, go to your state's judical or legislative homepage, and look thought the state statues. One section buiiedsomewhere in the section on civil procedure will pobably be titled "limitations". that's what you are looking for.
In general, filing a John Doe lawsuit doesn't expose the unknown defendnat to any adittional harm or danger compared to not filing a lawsuit until you know the person's identify. The defendant is still protected by statue of limtitations, and the plainitff still needs to investigate the identify of the defendnat and amend his complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to keep the unnamed defendnat in the case.
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
In truth, we have laws passed by a congressional body that is heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate spending, and a congressional body that is slow to change and update exisitng laws, especially in terms of handling technolgy.
On this issue, I think consumers on a whole have far more power than Congress to effect business practices, though our choice in patronizing companies or not.
My bank keeps issuing me knew credit cards (due to bank mergers, better credit, etc). At this rate, I'd never remeber what body part had the most recent RFID tag in it.
The only other goverment I can recall off the top of my head that tagged/marked the homelss was Nazi Germany. They thought it'd be a good idea to keep track of all those people with social illnesses, like the homeless gypsies, the homosexuals orthe Jewish community.
Slashdot Mirror
Two notes--
First, these amendments are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not the U.S. Code (our national statutes). Accordingly, they effect all litigants in federal civil litigation. That will include individuals, not just companies. So, if you ever sue or are sued in federal court (relatively common--if you are suing for over $75K and the opponent lives in another state, you can likely get into federal court as opposed to state court), this rule will apply to you.
Second, the duty of retention on electronic documents is currently unclear. As is (and IANAL (yet)), under the federal rules, you have no general duty to preserve documents if you have no reason to believe that the documents will be used in litigation. Its only once you realize that you've screwed up and are likely to be sued that you need to start preservig documents. (Caveat--there may be some specific rules that I am not aware of that require a short-ish (two-year) retention period for some documents, especially documents relating to securities). So, in effect, what this rule says is you now have to hand over your IMs if they are saved, not neccessarily that you need to be saving your IMs forever,
the type of gun, while relevant, is only one factor. Or so says the 10th Cir in Parker
... was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is 'well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir.2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria."
"Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir.2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment
br?
I go to good one. That doesn't matter, though.
Isn't it pretty well estbalished that the federal government can abridge our rights to gun ownership, provided that it does not relate to the use or estbalishment of a well-regulated milita. Check out U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 at 178 ("In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of [a shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.")
So, the government can restrict your gun ownership if it doesn't relate to milita use, right? And what well0-regulated milita do you belong too?
Also, check out United States v. Parker, 362 F.3d 1279, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004) (same), and United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1992) (same)
Well, according to the text of the amendment, only as long as we find it neccessary to the security of a free state to maintain a a well regulated militia. Which would be, what, 1865?
"but seriously, who can turn down a sound bite (sound byte?) like that?"
Anyone interested in not being (at least borderline) deceitful.
The statue depends on the crime or injury. In my state, for example, products liabilty cases are 3 years, negligence are two years, etc. As one frequently hears, murder has no statue of limitations. To findout what the statute of limitations is for you, go to your state's judical or legislative homepage, and look thought the state statues. One section buiiedsomewhere in the section on civil procedure will pobably be titled "limitations". that's what you are looking for.
In general, filing a John Doe lawsuit doesn't expose the unknown defendnat to any adittional harm or danger compared to not filing a lawsuit until you know the person's identify. The defendant is still protected by statue of limtitations, and the plainitff still needs to investigate the identify of the defendnat and amend his complaint prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations in order to keep the unnamed defendnat in the case.
In general, a plainitff is allowed to amend a complaint for errors in the complaint, and have those amendmends reach back to the orignal filing date for SOL purpose. Courts (at least in my Circuit), however, have ruled that the practice of naming John Does for unknown defendnats is not an "error", and therefore, ameneding the complaint with the person's name does track back to the filing date for the SOL--See Aslandis v. US Lines Inc or Barrow v. Wehtersfieddl Polic department. (I just had to research this -IANAL, IAA paralegal on his way to law school)
So, you break the law, either by trading copyriighted files or rapig someone. You are i danger of a lawsuit until your SOL expires. Wether they figure out who you are first and sue you, or sue forst and then figure it out, you still have the same exposure to litigation. In these RIAA cases, I'm guessing the RIAA goes ahead and files anyways to make it easier to obtain subpoenas, plus they get publiciity.
In truth, we have laws passed by a congressional body that is heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate spending, and a congressional body that is slow to change and update exisitng laws, especially in terms of handling technolgy. On this issue, I think consumers on a whole have far more power than Congress to effect business practices, though our choice in patronizing companies or not.
My bank keeps issuing me knew credit cards (due to bank mergers, better credit, etc). At this rate, I'd never remeber what body part had the most recent RFID tag in it.
amen.
Frankly, I don't want Budweiser knowing when I choose to buy their beer versus another brands."
They don't know when you buy your Bud, just when Bud is bought!
Already here, and for only $5.50.
http://www.welovemacs.com/m62037.html
Can you daisy-chain multiple splitters for some crazy orgy/music listening party?
The only other goverment I can recall off the top of my head that tagged/marked the homelss was Nazi Germany. They thought it'd be a good idea to keep track of all those people with social illnesses, like the homeless gypsies, the homosexuals orthe Jewish community.