It's going to be a curious trespassing charge. It's a restaurant that was open to the public during posted hours, they were willingly served food, and there is no indication that there was a complaint by the property owner/tenant.
Presumably they would be charged under Missouri Section 569.140.2, which doesn't clearly apply. Missouri Section 569.150.2, second degree trespass, is more general but changes the wording to simply "enters unlawfully", dropping "knowingly remains".
The Australian subsidiary is "paying" a much different price for the drugs than other subsidiaries. This goes beyond tax avoidance. It's cooking the books to avoid paying taxes.
When a drug sells for $3 in India and $200 in Australia, the subsidiary shouldn't be "paying" $198 for the drug.
I imagine what really scares the studios and MPAA is that Google likely already *has* some of the emails. Right there in GMail, on their own multiply-redundant servers. With the most powerful search engine in the world, and the third-best social network analysis.
Imagine their situation. They know that there are incriminating emails. Perhaps very incriminating emails. Can they be certain that the worst didn't end up on gmail?
Even when they know who received them, what if someone forwarded the email through their GMail account to more easily read them on a tablet or phone?
They can't really ask. Doing so would be out-and-out conspiracy. Which might be worse than the original offense.
For individuals with email that did end on GMail, what can they do? Delete it? That might be criminal. With Google's legendary email preservation, the mail might still be exist.
And the paranoia sets in: what if the email recipients are already known, and Google has already identified the email. The evidence might already be preserved. You can't delete it -- that would be spotted. You can't claim it doesn't exist -- Google already knows about it. You might claim to inadvertently omitted it from discovery responses -- but Google already knows about it!
Once you think it through, the only approach to block discovery completely. That's the only way Google can't use the incriminating emails. And if you know they are really incriminating, fight it with every tool at your disposal. Including getting nasty and personal. Using every political tool, and every powerful person.
It's actually Jonathon Christian Burns, and he is a new attorney. Not to be confused with John F Burns, an attorney in the same city, who is the right age to be his father.
He advertises himself as specializing in personal injury cases.
Interestingly, John F Burns also specializes in the usual ambulance chaser areas: personal injury, wrongful death, industrial accidents, property negligence, defect products, etc.
There is nothing wrong with that as a profession, but it's worth noting that this is basically a guy that will write a letter or lawsuit saying anything you like.
The only factor I see that points to them being employees is preventing them from working for competing services.
Uber drivers don't wear company uniforms and drive company vehicles -- something that delivery truck and cleaning service staff do. ("I hired you through Sears, your truck has a Sears logo, your uniform says Sears, and so does the invoice. But when something goes wrong, Sears says they have no responsibility for the independent contractor.")
I don't see background checks and minimum vehicle standards are being significant factors in an evaluation of employee status. I expect my service brokers to do those things.
ADP is flexing its muscles. ADP has the customer's payroll data, and the customers are deeply dependent on them. They believe that they own the customers, and will be able to force any small service provider into yielding some of their revenue or an ownership share solely because of that.
The best defense is to point out to ADP's customers that ADP is no longer a trustworthy service provider. In public. ADP is a service provider. That got their market-dominating position by promising appropriate access to the customers' data, not by pretending to own it.
Businesses want to choose in a global labor market, but they don't want 'their' customers to have unmediated access to the global services marketplace.
Did they ever post a bond for the original amount? The judge found their argument of poverty unconvincing, but it doesn't mean they actually paid.
They started making themselves 'judgement-proof' years ago. I expect that it will be difficult or impossible to access the money, even when it can be found.
Would you move to Florida to hide ill-gotten gains? Divorce your wife, putting most of the money in her name? Set up trusts for children? Set up trusts for unborn (and not yet conceived) children? They have done all of that, and likely much more that we don't know about.
These are lawyers that spent years learning about how to game the system. Combined with stalling for time and making every step as painful as possible, they are likely to get away with most of the money. (Well, Steele, and perhaps Hansmeier. Duffy appears to be just a sad sack lawyer that was played. He turned most of the early money over the S&H, thinking that he would get a slice of the revenue later.)
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
"Fix and over. This is/was no such policy."
Is your claim that a trial balloon that was popped isn't worth reporting on?
It was only because this was reported on that the rules were reversed. Pretending that it didn't happen negates that the press did their job serving the public.
It appears that he was at MIT in the 1960s -- well before they offered a CS degree. His claim to have a "CS degree from MIT" appears to be false.
It's a minor point. Lots of people take an extension course offered by a well-known university and deliberately use it out of context "e.g. studied at Harvard". It does however, point out he is very willing to mis-state the situation, and apparently the law.
I'm a little curious about his credentials and timeline, if anyone is interested in looking into it.
He claims a CS degree from MIT. He has been practicing law for 43 years, presumably continuously. But MIT granted their first regular CS degree in 1975, only 40 years ago. That was the same year that they added 'Computer Science' to the department name, reflecting the new curriculum.
As a lawyer, he knows that it's generally not illegal to make false claims about education, military service or the like. And he seems to be following the guideline "if it's not specifically illegal, it's not unethical".
There is a distraction here about the 'providing tools'.
That's a factor that goes into the decision. Just one element, and not a deterministic one.
It's common for mechanics to provide their own tools as employees. That's typically a five figure investment, with some having $100K in Snap-On boxes and tools, as employees. (If you know Snap-On prices, where a regular ratchet is over $100, that's easy to believe. But you get service such as on-site shopping, hand delivery of warranty replacements, and free moving of a several ton toolbox when you change jobs.)
I don't see the elements of employee-employer relationship here. It's especially clear with the vehicle purchase. He selected and bought the SUV on his own. Uber set minimum standards, but no other requirements. They had no control over the car type, where he purchased it, purchase price, or operating costs.
Around here, the typical Uber driver either has a Prius (casual driver) or a limo/Town Car (limo service using Uber for marketing). Having the freedom to make major financial choices, even bad ones before the first day working, is a hallmark of a contractor.
They have a paid a tiny fraction of their gains as court costs, and have a larger amount (but still well under 10%) tied up in bonds. The sole hope that there will be some specific penalty is that the appeals court may grant their plea for a criminal sanctions. Which would negate even the penalty that required posting the bond, while taking years to resolve.
With that as a guide, why would any lawyer be deterred?
For those unfamiliar with the underlying case, it was basically that these guys were running a sports betting operation. It was exactly the same as the 'legal' ones next door. Just in direct competition with them, although apparently serving only non-US people instead of including domestic bets.
They apparently rented an expensive bungalow in an casino in order to have immediate access to sporting event results.
The casino suspected they were competitors, and called on their government contacts. They tried to help the FBI get access with housekeeping and room service pretenses, but that didn't work. So they collaborated to cut the internet service so that they would have a pretense to enter.
The government granted these companies an operating monopoly. Now they want both the government-granted monopoly and freedom from government-imposed rules that went with that monopoly.
On the post: Judge Orders Release Of Dashcam Footage City Officials Thought They Had Paid To Keep Buried
The stories I've read stated "trace amounts", which suggests 'not under the influence'.
On the post: St. Louis County Still Considering Bringing Trespassing Charges Against Journalists Police Arrested In Ferguson
Who is pressing charges for trespass?
Presumably they would be charged under Missouri Section 569.140.2, which doesn't clearly apply. Missouri Section 569.150.2, second degree trespass, is more general but changes the wording to simply "enters unlawfully", dropping "knowingly remains".
On the post: Bosses Of Big Pharma Companies Unable To Deny Australia Being Ripped Off On Drug Costs
It's about tax evasion.
The Australian subsidiary is "paying" a much different price for the drugs than other subsidiaries. This goes beyond tax avoidance. It's cooking the books to avoid paying taxes.
When a drug sells for $3 in India and $200 in Australia, the subsidiary shouldn't be "paying" $198 for the drug.
On the post: The Verge Shuts Down News Comments To Help 'Build Relationships'
Especially, why does it come up when shutting down comments?
On the post: Hollywood Resists Revealing Details Of Its Cozy Relationship With Mississippi AG Jim Hood, But Glimpses Come Out
Imagine their situation. They know that there are incriminating emails. Perhaps very incriminating emails. Can they be certain that the worst didn't end up on gmail?
Even when they know who received them, what if someone forwarded the email through their GMail account to more easily read them on a tablet or phone?
They can't really ask. Doing so would be out-and-out conspiracy. Which might be worse than the original offense.
For individuals with email that did end on GMail, what can they do? Delete it? That might be criminal. With Google's legendary email preservation, the mail might still be exist.
And the paranoia sets in: what if the email recipients are already known, and Google has already identified the email. The evidence might already be preserved. You can't delete it -- that would be spotted. You can't claim it doesn't exist -- Google already knows about it. You might claim to inadvertently omitted it from discovery responses -- but Google already knows about it!
Once you think it through, the only approach to block discovery completely. That's the only way Google can't use the incriminating emails. And if you know they are really incriminating, fight it with every tool at your disposal. Including getting nasty and personal. Using every political tool, and every powerful person.
That looks exactly like what is happening.
On the post: The First Net Neutrality Complaint Has Been Filed, And It's Stupid (But Important)
I also want free peering, right at my telecom closet. A single gigabit Ethernet link would be acceptable, thanks.
On the post: Nutty Trollish Guy On The Internet Files Nutty Trollish Defamation Lawsuit In Random State
It's actually Jonathon Christian Burns, and he is a new attorney. Not to be confused with John F Burns, an attorney in the same city, who is the right age to be his father.
He advertises himself as specializing in personal injury cases.
Interestingly, John F Burns also specializes in the usual ambulance chaser areas: personal injury, wrongful death, industrial accidents, property negligence, defect products, etc.
There is nothing wrong with that as a profession, but it's worth noting that this is basically a guy that will write a letter or lawsuit saying anything you like.
On the post: California Labor Commission Declares Uber Driver An Employee, Rather Than A Contractor
Uber drivers don't wear company uniforms and drive company vehicles -- something that delivery truck and cleaning service staff do. ("I hired you through Sears, your truck has a Sears logo, your uniform says Sears, and so does the invoice. But when something goes wrong, Sears says they have no responsibility for the independent contractor.")
I don't see background checks and minimum vehicle standards are being significant factors in an evaluation of employee status. I expect my service brokers to do those things.
On the post: California Labor Commission Declares Uber Driver An Employee, Rather Than A Contractor
A traditional cab company does all that Uber does, plus controls the cars and sets the hours for their drivers.
Since they controlled what hours their drivers worked, their liability for unpaid overtime just became staggeringly large.
On the post: Payroll Giant ADP And Zenefits Get Into Ridiculous Spat That Has Already Resulted In A Lawsuit
The best defense is to point out to ADP's customers that ADP is no longer a trustworthy service provider. In public. ADP is a service provider. That got their market-dominating position by promising appropriate access to the customers' data, not by pretending to own it.
On the post: Bell Exec Urges Public To Shame Users Who 'Steal' Netflix Content Via VPNs
On the post: Team Prenda Gets Hit Hard With Contempt Sanctions For Lying To Court
The judge found their argument of poverty unconvincing, but it doesn't mean they actually paid.
They started making themselves 'judgement-proof' years ago. I expect that it will be difficult or impossible to access the money, even when it can be found.
Would you move to Florida to hide ill-gotten gains? Divorce your wife, putting most of the money in her name? Set up trusts for children? Set up trusts for unborn (and not yet conceived) children? They have done all of that, and likely much more that we don't know about.
These are lawyers that spent years learning about how to game the system. Combined with stalling for time and making every step as painful as possible, they are likely to get away with most of the money. (Well, Steele, and perhaps Hansmeier. Duffy appears to be just a sad sack lawyer that was played. He turned most of the early money over the S&H, thinking that he would get a slice of the revenue later.)
On the post: New Mexico Judge Says First Amendment Is Subservient To The 'Dignity Of The Court'
Re: Already FIXED AND OVER. There is/was NO such policy. Just Techdirt clickbaiting.
Is your claim that a trial balloon that was popped isn't worth reporting on?
It was only because this was reported on that the rules were reversed. Pretending that it didn't happen negates that the press did their job serving the public.
On the post: Lawyer Asman Drops Lawsuit Against EFF, But Claims That 'Ass man' Comments Are Defamatory
Re: Re: MIT CS degree?
His claim to have a "CS degree from MIT" appears to be false.
It's a minor point. Lots of people take an extension course offered by a well-known university and deliberately use it out of context "e.g. studied at Harvard". It does however, point out he is very willing to mis-state the situation, and apparently the law.
On the post: Lawyer Asman Drops Lawsuit Against EFF, But Claims That 'Ass man' Comments Are Defamatory
He claims a CS degree from MIT. He has been practicing law for 43 years, presumably continuously. But MIT granted their first regular CS degree in 1975, only 40 years ago. That was the same year that they added 'Computer Science' to the department name, reflecting the new curriculum.
As a lawyer, he knows that it's generally not illegal to make false claims about education, military service or the like. And he seems to be following the guideline "if it's not specifically illegal, it's not unethical".
On the post: USA Freedom Act Passes As All Of Mitch McConnell's Bad Amendments Fail
I see the threat of terrorism as receding. Acts of terrorism are extremely rare, and have been largely individually planned actions.
On the post: Florida Agency Says Uber Drivers Are Employees, Not Contractors
That's a factor that goes into the decision. Just one element, and not a deterministic one.
It's common for mechanics to provide their own tools as employees. That's typically a five figure investment, with some having $100K in Snap-On boxes and tools, as employees. (If you know Snap-On prices, where a regular ratchet is over $100, that's easy to believe. But you get service such as on-site shopping, hand delivery of warranty replacements, and free moving of a several ton toolbox when you change jobs.)
I don't see the elements of employee-employer relationship here. It's especially clear with the vehicle purchase. He selected and bought the SUV on his own. Uber set minimum standards, but no other requirements. They had no control over the car type, where he purchased it, purchase price, or operating costs.
Around here, the typical Uber driver either has a Prius (casual driver) or a limo/Town Car (limo service using Uber for marketing). Having the freedom to make major financial choices, even bad ones before the first day working, is a hallmark of a contractor.
On the post: Ohio Judge Fed Up With Malibu Media: Appears To Give Copyright Troll One Last Chance
They have a paid a tiny fraction of their gains as court costs, and have a larger amount (but still well under 10%) tied up in bonds. The sole hope that there will be some specific penalty is that the appeals court may grant their plea for a criminal sanctions. Which would negate even the penalty that required posting the bond, while taking years to resolve.
With that as a guide, why would any lawyer be deterred?
On the post: Federal Judge Tosses All Evidence Obtained By FBI's 'Cable Guy' Ruse
They apparently rented an expensive bungalow in an casino in order to have immediate access to sporting event results.
The casino suspected they were competitors, and called on their government contacts. They tried to help the FBI get access with housekeeping and room service pretenses, but that didn't work. So they collaborated to cut the internet service so that they would have a pretense to enter.
On the post: AT&T Argues Net Neutrality Violates Its First Amendment Rights
Next >>