in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you.
well, crimes is something different. If it's supposed to be a penalty, rather than restitution, he should be prosecuted with a criminal standard of proof required.
It is not their place to determine whether or not the punishment as prescribed by the law is appropriate
That is absolutely their job. That is why we have juries. If it as just about the interaction of the law with the evidence it would be a lot more efficient and effective to hold bench trials. Juries may be getting mis-instructed, but that they're listening is an indication of the vast array of ignorance amongst the general public as to what juries are for.
China does what is best for China. Getting into a hot war with the US will result in both the US, and the countries aligned with the US, ceasing to buy everything that China is selling. Collapsing China's enconomy is not what's best for China. Therefore China will not directly interfere with a war in North Korea unless, as in the first round, it looks like China herself is actually going to be invaded.
If China waited until it looked like MacArthur wasn't going to stop before rolling over the border the first time, when China had nothing to lose; what makes you think China would attack at the start of any war in the Korean penisular now, when China has everything to lose?
If the US were to bear the brunt of an advance about as far as Pyonyang, and then let the fresh South Koreans pass through them to finish the attack off (and South Korea alone is no threat to China), the Chinese might not like it, but they wouldn't let themselves be drawn into war over it. North Korea may be a useful buffer, but there's no way China can fight a war to maintain North Korea as a buffer.
then they can dispute the facts, but since the initial "throw everything you can and see what sticks" letter from the agent's lawyer only opposes the bloggers characterisation, and not her statement of 'facts', we can only presume that they aren't in dispute.
"Big Brother" Series 1, episode 4 IIRC. The most amusing thing about that is when the interviewer refers to the costs of the system as £25m, as if this was some extravagant amount of money to spent on a government IT project. (What are we on now? £10b with no result for the NHS system alone?)
then that REALLY sucks. I go up to the MFP, swipe my card to log in, select the scanning function, choose my scan settings (if the defaults aren't suitable), use the screen keyboard to type in a name I can find easily in future, select the network drive & folder I want it to go to (that's a one-touch preset) and press the big button to make it go. Once I get back to my desk, I open the relevant shared drive and do as I please with my document. In terms of faxing, having assured myself that it has scanned as I want it to, I have only to print it to a fax driver with the relevant number and off it goes. (In principle, but I don't think I've ever actually faxed a scan).
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to. They have lives, they have names. They have friends and families
Friends and families who ought to know what they do in their day job. Social blackballing is about the only effective method (short of summary execution) of deterring someone from doing something which is morally reprehensible but legal. If UK landlords can bar traffic wardens from drinking in their pubs, then people who feel they've been mis-treated by TSA agents can publicise who they are & what they did.
If you would find it awkward for your friends & family to know what you actually do at work, you should be asking yourself if you ought to be doing that job. If you won't then perhaps you need a little prompting from the glare of publicity.
In conclusion, surely TSA agents have nothing to hide in true accounts of how they go about doing their jobs.
It looks like they implied consent to federal jursidiction by getting it moved to federal court, but then immediately and directly put up the 'no jurisdiction' argument and walked away. Now, I'm fairly certain I remember seeing the plantiff saying under oath that the jurisdiction argument was invalid because they did have a presence in Illinois and the judge buying it.
But you're right, I'd forgotten the move-to-federal-jurisdiction bit, which does muddy the waters.
Still, the court should have established that it had jurisdiction before even allowing the case to proceed to the stage of serving the papers on Spamhaus, and done that without paying much regard to any opinion the plantiff may have proffered on the question.
if they ever do want to have a presence in the US, the most this assclown can pop up and demand from them in $3+interest. Best to tidy it up now, than have it as a roadblock in the future.
yes and no. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, the judge is supposed to toss the case, not rule on it anyway inspite of the fact that his ruling will be unenforceable. In this case, the judge took the word of the plaintiff (who obviously has a massive vested interest in getting a default judgement) that the court had jurisdiction, and proceeded with the case.
She was told that it wasn't working, and it wasn't. I wouldn't hazard even that much on a non-functioning computer which may only turn out to have scrap value. I've also seen people give away machines which they think are broken beyond repair (and so only have scrap, or cannibalisation value) which actually only have one broken component, and replace them with new ones.
I conclusion I can quite see someone thinking their machine is broken, buying a new one (or having a new one bought for them), and trying to flog the old one for $60. The only thing I don't really see is someone actually paying that for a broken laptop on the off-chance they could get it working. But not thinking "that's awfully cheap for someone to be selling a broken laptop, it's probably stolen".
Free speech is not about protecting the ability of professionals acting on behalf of the state to pass comment (in their professional capacity) on the public.
Which judgement did you read? See footnote 2 on page 7.
Although the City of Boston is formally included in the caption to this appeal, the parties agree that the City has no right to immediate interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified immunity, as it did not -- and could not -- assert such a defense. See Walden v. City of Providence, 596 F.3d 38, 55 n.23 (1st Cir. 2010). In referring to the appellants, then, we refer only to the individual defendants appealing the denial of qualified immunity.
Mind you, this isn't really about the case - this is just legal wrangling to see if the officers can use the defence of ignorance to squash the entire case from the outset. As the second paragraph on page 5 notes, they have to get the argument about this out of the way before they can get into arguing the actual case about whether a violation occured.
Under current laws, it's not going to happen. It's not illegal to disseminate information that's part of the public record. What are you going to sue for? Defamation of character? You did get arrested. Libel? Posting a mug shot that was taken by Law Enforcement is hardly slanderous, after all, you *DID* get arrested. Expecting one aspect of the justice system to essentially rule against another aspect is just the height of ignorance and optimism.
This website is available in the UK. Sue in London. Problem solved. (But do it quick, before Parliament fixes the law.)
That's not the only way to read it. It could be something he did on his own time, and proposed to his manager that it (HIS gpl code) be incorporated into a project they were working on in the company which would inevitably force the whole project into gpl licensing. That would explain the 'we' without automatically making everything the property of the company.
The real upshot is that we don't have nearly enough detail here, and the only real advice we (the/. community) can give is talk to a lawyer (giving an imperial butt-ton more detail) before saying anything else in public. Suing is expensive, 30 minutes or an hour of a lawyer's time to discuss whether you have a case isn't quite so expensive.
If this is a USA originated problem then "getting a lawyer" seems to be the default approach to everything rather than actually solving the problem.
It's a sad result of the fact that trying to resolve the problem amicably, and without engaging a lawyer first, can result in you making all sorts of mistakes which will leave you unable to resolve the problem in the courts later if it has to go that far.
This is City of London Police. They're a tiny force who police only the Square Mile (and are not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police). It was one of their officers who seized that chap's anti-scientology placard a few years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
in fact they can't lay one hand on you without being guilty of assault, and you would be within your rights to use force against any mall employee that attempts to restrain you.
Sadly, no.
well, crimes is something different. If it's supposed to be a penalty, rather than restitution, he should be prosecuted with a criminal standard of proof required.
It is not their place to determine whether or not the punishment as prescribed by the law is appropriate
That is absolutely their job. That is why we have juries. If it as just about the interaction of the law with the evidence it would be a lot more efficient and effective to hold bench trials.
Juries may be getting mis-instructed, but that they're listening is an indication of the vast array of ignorance amongst the general public as to what juries are for.
China does what is best for China. Getting into a hot war with the US will result in both the US, and the countries aligned with the US, ceasing to buy everything that China is selling. Collapsing China's enconomy is not what's best for China. Therefore China will not directly interfere with a war in North Korea unless, as in the first round, it looks like China herself is actually going to be invaded.
If China waited until it looked like MacArthur wasn't going to stop before rolling over the border the first time, when China had nothing to lose; what makes you think China would attack at the start of any war in the Korean penisular now, when China has everything to lose?
If the US were to bear the brunt of an advance about as far as Pyonyang, and then let the fresh South Koreans pass through them to finish the attack off (and South Korea alone is no threat to China), the Chinese might not like it, but they wouldn't let themselves be drawn into war over it. North Korea may be a useful buffer, but there's no way China can fight a war to maintain North Korea as a buffer.
then they can dispute the facts, but since the initial "throw everything you can and see what sticks" letter from the agent's lawyer only opposes the bloggers characterisation, and not her statement of 'facts', we can only presume that they aren't in dispute.
"Big Brother" Series 1, episode 4 IIRC. The most amusing thing about that is when the interviewer refers to the costs of the system as £25m, as if this was some extravagant amount of money to spent on a government IT project. (What are we on now? £10b with no result for the NHS system alone?)
And his ISPs logs showing a packet or packets correlating to this:
Sep 7 10:52:11 localmailsever postfix/smtp[49792]: 08E1C65A3B: to=recipient@customer, relay=customermailserver[10.0.4.5]:25, delay=1.4, delays=0.04/0/0.29/1.1, dsn=2.6.0, status=sent (250 2.6.0 Queued mail for delivery)
aren't about as effective proof as stapling a 'send complete' receipt from a fax machine to any old document you want to claim that you sent?
then that REALLY sucks.
I go up to the MFP, swipe my card to log in, select the scanning function, choose my scan settings (if the defaults aren't suitable), use the screen keyboard to type in a name I can find easily in future, select the network drive & folder I want it to go to (that's a one-touch preset) and press the big button to make it go. Once I get back to my desk, I open the relevant shared drive and do as I please with my document. In terms of faxing, having assured myself that it has scanned as I want it to, I have only to print it to a fax driver with the relevant number and off it goes. (In principle, but I don't think I've ever actually faxed a scan).
This doesn't mean that TSA employees are not people to. They have lives, they have names. They have friends and families
Friends and families who ought to know what they do in their day job. Social blackballing is about the only effective method (short of summary execution) of deterring someone from doing something which is morally reprehensible but legal. If UK landlords can bar traffic wardens from drinking in their pubs, then people who feel they've been mis-treated by TSA agents can publicise who they are & what they did.
If you would find it awkward for your friends & family to know what you actually do at work, you should be asking yourself if you ought to be doing that job. If you won't then perhaps you need a little prompting from the glare of publicity.
In conclusion, surely TSA agents have nothing to hide in true accounts of how they go about doing their jobs.
GREEK ALERT!
It looks like they implied consent to federal jursidiction by getting it moved to federal court, but then immediately and directly put up the 'no jurisdiction' argument and walked away. Now, I'm fairly certain I remember seeing the plantiff saying under oath that the jurisdiction argument was invalid because they did have a presence in Illinois and the judge buying it.
But you're right, I'd forgotten the move-to-federal-jurisdiction bit, which does muddy the waters.
Still, the court should have established that it had jurisdiction before even allowing the case to proceed to the stage of serving the papers on Spamhaus, and done that without paying much regard to any opinion the plantiff may have proffered on the question.
if they ever do want to have a presence in the US, the most this assclown can pop up and demand from them in $3+interest. Best to tidy it up now, than have it as a roadblock in the future.
yes and no. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, the judge is supposed to toss the case, not rule on it anyway inspite of the fact that his ruling will be unenforceable. In this case, the judge took the word of the plaintiff (who obviously has a massive vested interest in getting a default judgement) that the court had jurisdiction, and proceeded with the case.
She was told that it wasn't working, and it wasn't. I wouldn't hazard even that much on a non-functioning computer which may only turn out to have scrap value.
I've also seen people give away machines which they think are broken beyond repair (and so only have scrap, or cannibalisation value) which actually only have one broken component, and replace them with new ones.
I conclusion I can quite see someone thinking their machine is broken, buying a new one (or having a new one bought for them), and trying to flog the old one for $60. The only thing I don't really see is someone actually paying that for a broken laptop on the off-chance they could get it working. But not thinking "that's awfully cheap for someone to be selling a broken laptop, it's probably stolen".
Free speech is not about protecting the ability of professionals acting on behalf of the state to pass comment (in their professional capacity) on the public.
Which judgement did you read? See footnote 2 on page 7.
Although the City of Boston is formally included in the
caption to this appeal, the parties agree that the City has no
right to immediate interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified
immunity, as it did not -- and could not -- assert such a defense.
See Walden v. City of Providence, 596 F.3d 38, 55 n.23 (1st Cir.
2010). In referring to the appellants, then, we refer only to the
individual defendants appealing the denial of qualified immunity.
Mind you, this isn't really about the case - this is just legal wrangling to see if the officers can use the defence of ignorance to squash the entire case from the outset. As the second paragraph on page 5 notes, they have to get the argument about this out of the way before they can get into arguing the actual case about whether a violation occured.
Under current laws, it's not going to happen. It's not illegal to disseminate information that's part of the public record. What are you going to sue for? Defamation of character? You did get arrested. Libel? Posting a mug shot that was taken by Law Enforcement is hardly slanderous, after all, you *DID* get arrested. Expecting one aspect of the justice system to essentially rule against another aspect is just the height of ignorance and optimism.
This website is available in the UK. Sue in London. Problem solved. (But do it quick, before Parliament fixes the law.)
"arrest == guilty, but might wriggle out of it on a technicality" I think you mean...
Time to start flinging those broadcasts across the Atlantic, and have a little man in Cornwall sit in a shack watching them 24/7...
That's not the only way to read it. It could be something he did on his own time, and proposed to his manager that it (HIS gpl code) be incorporated into a project they were working on in the company which would inevitably force the whole project into gpl licensing. That would explain the 'we' without automatically making everything the property of the company.
The real upshot is that we don't have nearly enough detail here, and the only real advice we (the /. community) can give is talk to a lawyer (giving an imperial butt-ton more detail) before saying anything else in public. Suing is expensive, 30 minutes or an hour of a lawyer's time to discuss whether you have a case isn't quite so expensive.
no, no, no. There's [Andariel, Duriel, + the other 5] -> [Diablo, Mephisto & Baal] -> IRS
If you join the army journalism corps, and are paid to write newspaper articles, who owns the articles?
The ones you write during your on-duty hours? The Army. The ones you write on your own time? You.
How did we get to the situation where this question is even being asked?
If this is a USA originated problem then "getting a lawyer" seems to be the default approach to everything rather than actually solving the problem.
It's a sad result of the fact that trying to resolve the problem amicably, and without engaging a lawyer first, can result in you making all sorts of mistakes which will leave you unable to resolve the problem in the courts later if it has to go that far.
Code you write at home belongs to your employer if those are the terms of employment, and if a judge buys that in court
This is City of London Police. They're a tiny force who police only the Square Mile (and are not to be confused with the Metropolitan Police). It was one of their officers who seized that chap's anti-scientology placard a few years ago.