1) You weren't given enough time to use the PACER training (https://www.pacer.gov/psc/etraining.html) or read the documentation to figure out how to use the system.
2) Your boss was an enormous asshole.
Personally, (2) sounds to be the reason why you hate the system and everything associated with it.
Stenographers get transcripts up within one to two days. They also assure that there is an *accurate* record of proceedings, which is important if you want to challenge something that happened in court or during a deposition.
As far as I know, Ken White of Popehat is based out of California and this case was filed in Massachusetts. While the Popehat Signal may find a lawyer willing to take on this case, there are going to be a lot of costs (regardless of attorney's fees) that have to be covered.
Calling someone names isn't libel. Claiming something factually untrue is. This case is about TD's claim that the plaintiff did not invent email and that he has lied or misled people by representing that he did so. Legally speaking, if Mike merely insulted the guy this wouldn't even be a case.
To put it another way, your schadenfreude is balanced by mild amusement at your ignorance.
While I think that the general idea of your post sounds about right, I'm not sure how the fee shifting would work in practice. This really comes down to just hours worked during the case review and public defenders don't traditionally record hours worked. So this would only really work if public defenders were conducting review specifically for this purpose, otherwise it's going to be a rough guess. Additionally, I imagine the majority of the inadvertently discovered cases would be the result of a PD working on a present or future case, rather than working on this project. So, while I see the merits in providing an incentive for the state to provide complete records, I'm just not sure that this is a feasible or effective one.
Re: Rule 11 -- the part about the prosecutors standing behind filings!
First, the Rule 11 you are referring to is Civil Rule 11, not Criminal Rule 11. These are criminal cases, so that requirement is not there. That being said, being less than forthcoming with the courts is generally a bad thing.
Second, the issue being highlighted is that it isn't necessarily easy to figure out which convictions "relied" on these tests. The issue here is you can't just say "all cases involving field tests will be overturned" because there are likely many where drugs were actually recovered, witness statements were collected, and there was other evidence which alone may have been sufficient for a conviction. The end result is that this will be a labor intensive investigation.
Third, to counter the jist of this article, it's really not a bad thing for defense attorneys to conduct the review. The issue here is this - if you didn't trust the State to fairly adjudicate these cases the first time, why on earth would you trust them to clear people the second time? You do want a party who has a mandate to act in the best interests of their client to conduct the investigation because at least they have an incentive and ethical obligation to do so.
The real issue here, which has been confounded, is that public defenders are overworked and underfunded. While that has unfortunate and real consequences, the proffered solution in this article is not without fault.
I wonder why the judge did not just request that Mr. White submit the information for an in camera inspection (giving it to the judge for the judge alone to review). If the court had not yet ruled on whether to require revealing the Plaintiff's identity, it seems inappropriate to do so on the premise that the case is now mooted.
Well, that seems like a bit of an unfair way to look at it. Faraday is a startup which has two things: labor and intellectual property. They have not yet reached a viable manufacturing stage, so the only value being created thus far is in R&D. This article highlights two issues:
1) Faraday does not actually control any of it's intellectual property. Instead, it is held by another private company whose ownership is unclear.
2) Faraday has diverted resources from its own projects for the benefit of an unrelated company which is owned by a shareholder.
I don't think it is necessarily a problem if Faraday chooses to give away its intellectual property for the public benefit, but that's not the situation. Faraday is diverting literally the only two things it has of value (research and labor) for the benefit of a shareholder and competitor. That's an enormous breach of loyalty (in the legal sense) and should raise serious concerns about the board of directors and ownership of the company. While you focus on part of the what (giving away IP), you're missing the "to whom" and "why" part of the question that is really the cause of panic.
Well, to look at it another, people are worried that not only is the intellectual property being siphoned off, but the labor is being siphoned off for the sole benefit of an investor. Why shouldn't people freak out that a company's board is breaching its duties to its shareholders for the benefit of another shareholder/board member?
No, really, really no. You're not going to be disbarred for defending anything, so long as you have a reasonable basis for your position. As stupid as this law is, you can think of at least theoretically plausible defenses.
Well, in the United States, assuming it was manufactured in or before 1898, it would legally not be treated as a firearm. Instead, it is an antique firearm which has significantly more lax restrictions.
Well, except that such content-focused restrictions would fall under strict scrutiny and would be struck down by the courts very quickly because they are not narrowly tailored.
So, to reply, your uninformed opinion on the law carries no weight.
Net neutrality is not focused on the content of the message and service; rather, it is focused on the competitive advantage an ISP gives to itself or those from whom it is able to extract a price. That has literally nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with preventing anti-competitive practices.
On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue... As A Class Action
Re:
1) You weren't given enough time to use the PACER training (https://www.pacer.gov/psc/etraining.html) or read the documentation to figure out how to use the system.
2) Your boss was an enormous asshole.
Personally, (2) sounds to be the reason why you hate the system and everything associated with it.
On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue... As A Class Action
Re: Government Legal Bureaucrats
On the post: Judge Says Lawsuit Over PACER Fees Can Continue... As A Class Action
Re: Anyone remember?
On the post: Trump Muzzles Federal Employees; Reporters Start Asking For Leaks
Re: Re: Re: Hm
On the post: Rudy Giuliani To Head Up Trump's Cybersecurity Team As The Internet Laughs At Giuliani's Security Bona Fides
Knowledge is Overrated.
On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
Re:
On the post: Techdirt's First Amendment Fight For Its Life
Re: What goes around, comes around
To put it another way, your schadenfreude is balanced by mild amusement at your ignorance.
On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work
Re: It's kind of off the subject but I have a question...
It's a fair point about the inequities of funding, but your choice of words was unfortunate.
On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work
Re: Re:
On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work
Re: Re: Re: Plead Guilty when innocent?
On the post: Prosecutors Looking Into $2 Field Drug Tests After Investigation, Figure Defense Attorneys Should Do All The Work
Re: Rule 11 -- the part about the prosecutors standing behind filings!
Second, the issue being highlighted is that it isn't necessarily easy to figure out which convictions "relied" on these tests. The issue here is you can't just say "all cases involving field tests will be overturned" because there are likely many where drugs were actually recovered, witness statements were collected, and there was other evidence which alone may have been sufficient for a conviction. The end result is that this will be a labor intensive investigation.
Third, to counter the jist of this article, it's really not a bad thing for defense attorneys to conduct the review. The issue here is this - if you didn't trust the State to fairly adjudicate these cases the first time, why on earth would you trust them to clear people the second time? You do want a party who has a mandate to act in the best interests of their client to conduct the investigation because at least they have an incentive and ethical obligation to do so.
The real issue here, which has been confounded, is that public defenders are overworked and underfunded. While that has unfortunate and real consequences, the proffered solution in this article is not without fault.
On the post: Confirmed Horrible Person James Woods Continues Being Horrible In 'Winning' Awful Lawsuit To Unmask Deceased Online Critic
On the post: Tesla Gave Up Its Patents, But People Are Freaked Out That Faraday Future Put Its Own Into A Separate Company
1) Faraday does not actually control any of it's intellectual property. Instead, it is held by another private company whose ownership is unclear.
2) Faraday has diverted resources from its own projects for the benefit of an unrelated company which is owned by a shareholder.
I don't think it is necessarily a problem if Faraday chooses to give away its intellectual property for the public benefit, but that's not the situation. Faraday is diverting literally the only two things it has of value (research and labor) for the benefit of a shareholder and competitor. That's an enormous breach of loyalty (in the legal sense) and should raise serious concerns about the board of directors and ownership of the company. While you focus on part of the what (giving away IP), you're missing the "to whom" and "why" part of the question that is really the cause of panic.
On the post: Tesla Gave Up Its Patents, But People Are Freaked Out That Faraday Future Put Its Own Into A Separate Company
On the post: Trump Still Falsely Taking Credit For Sprint Jobs He Had Nothing To Do With
Re:
Well, dying is a solution to both of those problems.
On the post: City Passes Ordinance Mandating CCTV Surveillance By Businesses, Including Doctors And Lawyers Offices
Re:
On the post: South Carolina Senator Wants To Charge Computer Purchasers $20 To Access Internet Porn
Re: Re:
On the post: Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'
Re: Regulators are Divine
So, to reply, your uninformed opinion on the law carries no weight.
On the post: Remaining FCC Commissioners Promise To Gut Net Neutrality 'As Soon As Possible'
Re: Regulators are Divine
Next >>