Yes, by responding to a claim you submit to that court's jurisdiction. Spamhous either should have not appeared (they would lose, but the judgment would be unenforceable) or they could have made a special appearance. A special appearance is where your attorney goes to court and tells the court he is only making a special appearance for the limited purpose of contesting jurisdiction of the court. Spamhous responded in court then tried to contest jurisdiction. Sorry, you have to do that first and special appearances aren't anything special, it's 1L Civ Pro stuff, they can't claim to not have known.
That would be terrible. What happens when you sue a company for not upholding their warranty? You bring your nice attorney to meet their fleet of attorneys all making $1,000/hr. Still sure your reading of the warranty is correct? Are you absolutely certain that what happened is not specifically excluded? Are you absolutely sure you are going to win?
Well, you change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so the pleading requirement is higher instead of blaming a judge for following the law.
FRCP rule 8
(a) Claims for Relief.
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
2 does not mean you have to prove your case, it simply means that, if correct, you are entitled to relief. A judge usually cannot throw out a case simply for sounding stupid unless it sounds stupid because it makes nothing but legal conclusions and no claims (Gillespie v. Goodyear).
You think he's bad? The other Republican candidate (technically 3rd party but come on) for the CO governorship is Tom Tancredo. Both Maes and Tancredo know more about conspiracies and fake threats to America than they do about their children.
If it makes you feel any better neither of these idiots will win.
That will never happen. People hate the other party more than they hate a pathetic incumbent. The only certain way is a Constitutional amendment for term limits.
ULA will always get more business than any other private company because ULA is Lockheed and Boeing. SpaceX is an outsider building a better rocket while ULA is coasting on government cost plus contracts. If that 13B is funneled back to Ares then Boeing gets a sizable chunk since they were building the 2nd stage of Ares. I wouldn't put SpaceX in the same category as ULA. If SpaceX succeeds we could see space open up to companies like Bigelow and Orbital Sciences. NASA going with ULA will change nothing.
but the folks in CA loved their EV-1s which GM yanked from them and told their potential market base to shove it. Do the people in CA just love imports or do they hate the customer service they got on a previous next gen electric car from GM?
Besides, Nissan says the Leaf will be made in Japan for two years then TN for mass production. Doesn't it make sense that if the leaf does well then TN will benefit?
The Raich case is a Supreme Court case that found federal drug laws trump state law due to interstate commerce even if the product is made and sold in the same state. It doesn't matter what the DEA wants to do. This is a case that the SCOTUS will have to overturn one of its earlier rulings. Will it? Maybe, but I don't think we'll get there. The pressure for reasonable pot laws will eventually sway Congressional opinion and we'll probably see marijuana drop off federal regulation leaving legalization up to the states.
Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in.
No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.
That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.
Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.
It can't mean that because the necessary and proper clause (Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 18).
but interstate commerce is domain of the federal government. Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). An enumerated right does not mean that what is being regulated is specifically stated in the Constitution. That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.
You forgot where they chant, "The government can do nothing right. The government can do nothing better than private industry." Then turnaround and declare, "Only NASA can build rockets. The private industry sucks balls on space."
I will never understand, other than pork and earmarks, why some in Congress see SpaceX as bad. I, for one, am really excited by the possibilities opened if SpaceX can wrest some control of space away from the government for private industry. The government has put up the ISS which is great, because it shows us what can be done in space and why. But Bigelow aerospace is already building inflatable habitation modules and has contracted SpaceX to take them to space. Private industry is ready to open up earth's orbit.
Just because Apple is allowed to censor the forums doesn't mean when they do it it's not censorship. It just means you knew they could do it. I don't think the argument here is that they couldn't do it, but that they shouldn't do it.
Angry customers are free to picket and protest in front of your shop.
Class action lawsuits are more involved than just "my product is crap." Usually it's a situation where you cannot return the product. For example, the possible class action against Sony for removing 3rd party OS capability from the PS3. How many of them can return the unit? Few. So you get all of the users who cannot return their product but have lost value due to Sony's removal and sue for compensation.
Your lottery example is easily distinguishable, because you have no expectation to win with the lottery but you do have the expectation that your product will work.
Wow, you pick those three and leave out Korematsu? You don't like interstate commerce in the Constitution but you like racial detention camps? Harsh, dude, harsh.
Well, the deal was for certain things to be accomplished and not just to launch another rocket. If they can achieve the next to goals of the COTS missions why shouldn't they get paid?
Simple answer: if Plaintiff sues somebody and that person is properly served then the defendant must answer in the time limit set by law. If there is no answer the plaintiff may ask for a default judgment. The plaintiff needs to show the evidence required to prove their case (preponderance of evidence in civil), and if they do so, the court will issue a default judgment.
If defendant does not appear after having filed an answer then the plaintiff again requests a default judgment. The defendant is then notified about the hearing, and if they don't show at the hearing the court will likely rule default.
If by "randomly" you mean someone just sues someone else for no reason then there likely will not be a default judgment. You do still need evidence, but it is much easier to present your case when no one else disputes your view of things.
You do win by default. If you are sued by someone in a jurisdiction that you know doesn't actually have jurisdiction over you, like in this case, you have two options. 1. make a "special appearance" simply to tell the court you have no jurisdiction over us. 2. Don't show up and face a default judgment. Option 1 makes the court decide whether they are the proper venue at all. If they decide you are then the case goes on and you must appear. If not then the case is over. Option 2 means you will lose by default; however, if someone tries to make you pay the fine then you still can claim the court lacks jurisdiction and we go back to 1. In this case if the court finds affirmatively you owe that money. If they don't then you're free and clear with minimal legal fees.
In re Spamhaus it means Spamhaus won't ever have to pay as long as they never move any operations to the US. If they do then they'll just claim the court lacked jurisdiction.
Don't confuse the ability to sue with the ability to collect.
You get modded down because the AG does not answer to the governor. You are trying to say Asshat Rendell is making Asshat Corbett do things. That is not how the AG of a state works. The AG is elected by the people and not appointed by the governor. AG Corbett is his own man and needs to be held accountable for things he does of his own free will. Unless you have proof that Rendell is forcing Corbett to do things then you are simply blaming Rendell for Corbett's actions.
Nope, they're basically set by OPEC which will use ANY reason to increase the cost of oil. Your logic is sound when thinking of pure supply and demand, but oil is run by a cartel outside the reach of US law.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, by responding to a claim you submit to that court's jurisdiction. Spamhous either should have not appeared (they would lose, but the judgment would be unenforceable) or they could have made a special appearance. A special appearance is where your attorney goes to court and tells the court he is only making a special appearance for the limited purpose of contesting jurisdiction of the court. Spamhous responded in court then tried to contest jurisdiction. Sorry, you have to do that first and special appearances aren't anything special, it's 1L Civ Pro stuff, they can't claim to not have known.
That would be terrible. What happens when you sue a company for not upholding their warranty? You bring your nice attorney to meet their fleet of attorneys all making $1,000/hr. Still sure your reading of the warranty is correct? Are you absolutely certain that what happened is not specifically excluded? Are you absolutely sure you are going to win?
You better be.
Well, you change the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so the pleading requirement is higher instead of blaming a judge for following the law.
FRCP rule 8
(a) Claims for Relief.
A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and
(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.
2 does not mean you have to prove your case, it simply means that, if correct, you are entitled to relief. A judge usually cannot throw out a case simply for sounding stupid unless it sounds stupid because it makes nothing but legal conclusions and no claims (Gillespie v. Goodyear).
You think he's bad? The other Republican candidate (technically 3rd party but come on) for the CO governorship is Tom Tancredo. Both Maes and Tancredo know more about conspiracies and fake threats to America than they do about their children.
If it makes you feel any better neither of these idiots will win.
That will never happen. People hate the other party more than they hate a pathetic incumbent. The only certain way is a Constitutional amendment for term limits.
ULA will always get more business than any other private company because ULA is Lockheed and Boeing. SpaceX is an outsider building a better rocket while ULA is coasting on government cost plus contracts. If that 13B is funneled back to Ares then Boeing gets a sizable chunk since they were building the 2nd stage of Ares. I wouldn't put SpaceX in the same category as ULA. If SpaceX succeeds we could see space open up to companies like Bigelow and Orbital Sciences. NASA going with ULA will change nothing.
but the folks in CA loved their EV-1s which GM yanked from them and told their potential market base to shove it. Do the people in CA just love imports or do they hate the customer service they got on a previous next gen electric car from GM?
Besides, Nissan says the Leaf will be made in Japan for two years then TN for mass production. Doesn't it make sense that if the leaf does well then TN will benefit?
The Raich case is a Supreme Court case that found federal drug laws trump state law due to interstate commerce even if the product is made and sold in the same state. It doesn't matter what the DEA wants to do. This is a case that the SCOTUS will have to overturn one of its earlier rulings. Will it? Maybe, but I don't think we'll get there. The pressure for reasonable pot laws will eventually sway Congressional opinion and we'll probably see marijuana drop off federal regulation leaving legalization up to the states.
No, it isn't. The courts maintain the fiction that it is, but the fiction is absurd. It's no more valid than the occasional claims that <insert objectionable speech here> isn't really speech but action.
Really? Because the 10th amendment says precisely that.
It can't mean that because the necessary and proper clause (Art. I Sec. 8 Clause 18).
but interstate commerce is domain of the federal government. Pot growing and sale is interstate commerce even if it doesn't leave the state it was grown in. Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). An enumerated right does not mean that what is being regulated is specifically stated in the Constitution. That is, you cannot say that the federal government cannot regulate drugs, because it does not specifically say they can regulate drugs in the Constitution.
You forgot where they chant, "The government can do nothing right. The government can do nothing better than private industry." Then turnaround and declare, "Only NASA can build rockets. The private industry sucks balls on space."
I will never understand, other than pork and earmarks, why some in Congress see SpaceX as bad. I, for one, am really excited by the possibilities opened if SpaceX can wrest some control of space away from the government for private industry. The government has put up the ISS which is great, because it shows us what can be done in space and why. But Bigelow aerospace is already building inflatable habitation modules and has contracted SpaceX to take them to space. Private industry is ready to open up earth's orbit.
Just because Apple is allowed to censor the forums doesn't mean when they do it it's not censorship. It just means you knew they could do it. I don't think the argument here is that they couldn't do it, but that they shouldn't do it.
Angry customers are free to picket and protest in front of your shop.
Class action lawsuits are more involved than just "my product is crap." Usually it's a situation where you cannot return the product. For example, the possible class action against Sony for removing 3rd party OS capability from the PS3. How many of them can return the unit? Few. So you get all of the users who cannot return their product but have lost value due to Sony's removal and sue for compensation.
Your lottery example is easily distinguishable, because you have no expectation to win with the lottery but you do have the expectation that your product will work.
Are you joking? I could write both of those on a chalkboard and easily fit them within two ovals. Conspiracy thusly illuminated.
but neither rise to the level of Bigus Dickus. He has a wife you know?
I'm anticipating it. I've got a keyboard but I have 10 fingers all on my right hand. This thing is perfect for me.
Wow, you pick those three and leave out Korematsu? You don't like interstate commerce in the Constitution but you like racial detention camps? Harsh, dude, harsh.
Well, the deal was for certain things to be accomplished and not just to launch another rocket. If they can achieve the next to goals of the COTS missions why shouldn't they get paid?
Simple answer: if Plaintiff sues somebody and that person is properly served then the defendant must answer in the time limit set by law. If there is no answer the plaintiff may ask for a default judgment. The plaintiff needs to show the evidence required to prove their case (preponderance of evidence in civil), and if they do so, the court will issue a default judgment.
If defendant does not appear after having filed an answer then the plaintiff again requests a default judgment. The defendant is then notified about the hearing, and if they don't show at the hearing the court will likely rule default.
If by "randomly" you mean someone just sues someone else for no reason then there likely will not be a default judgment. You do still need evidence, but it is much easier to present your case when no one else disputes your view of things.
But you're talking about criminal law and not civil law. There is a difference you know?
You do win by default. If you are sued by someone in a jurisdiction that you know doesn't actually have jurisdiction over you, like in this case, you have two options. 1. make a "special appearance" simply to tell the court you have no jurisdiction over us. 2. Don't show up and face a default judgment. Option 1 makes the court decide whether they are the proper venue at all. If they decide you are then the case goes on and you must appear. If not then the case is over. Option 2 means you will lose by default; however, if someone tries to make you pay the fine then you still can claim the court lacks jurisdiction and we go back to 1. In this case if the court finds affirmatively you owe that money. If they don't then you're free and clear with minimal legal fees.
In re Spamhaus it means Spamhaus won't ever have to pay as long as they never move any operations to the US. If they do then they'll just claim the court lacked jurisdiction.
Don't confuse the ability to sue with the ability to collect.
I'm not sure, but judging by the history of copyright laws I'd say no one/public, or Disney.
Yeah, but Twain was trying to increase the value of the work not decrease it.
You get modded down because the AG does not answer to the governor. You are trying to say Asshat Rendell is making Asshat Corbett do things. That is not how the AG of a state works. The AG is elected by the people and not appointed by the governor. AG Corbett is his own man and needs to be held accountable for things he does of his own free will. Unless you have proof that Rendell is forcing Corbett to do things then you are simply blaming Rendell for Corbett's actions.
Nope, they're basically set by OPEC which will use ANY reason to increase the cost of oil. Your logic is sound when thinking of pure supply and demand, but oil is run by a cartel outside the reach of US law.
Derek Smart. Need you ask?