So, that bitch Nancy Pelosi is trying to have her cake and eat it too? You cannot vote for the NSA surveillance program and then turn around and jump back on the "I hate this program" shtick.
Just like a liberal, to flip flop ... Democrats accuse Republicans of flip flopping but it's the Democrats who do the actual flip flopping.
Everyone who believes that the Coroner's report is based on fact, raise your hand.
I thought so.
Nobody believes this piece of bullshit trickery perpetrated by the Coroner's office who is more linked to the police department and the prosecutor's office than they are to an independent and unbiased organization.
This report is nothing more than a farce designed to "officially" let the police department off the hook by explaining this man's lifestyle for what they refer to as "being drunk" as an explanation for calling the man an alcoholic.
This Coroner's report is a sham and should be called out for what it is. Now, how much you want to bet that Kern County is going to hold this up as a justification for beating this man to death and how they're going to explain that the nine police officers who used excessive force and beat this man to a pulp with police batons weren't responsible for him dying.
These are the same cops who would blame the doctor's for someone's death after a police car had ran a red light and killed a two year old with their police cruiser. (This never happened but it's this kind of philosophy that Kern County police are hoping that we believe).
I remember, when I was in elementary school, that someone I knew taught me how to hack up "loogies". Well, suffice it to say that I was about seven or eight at the time and I thought it was cool so I caught this girl as she was coming up the steps and caught her in the face.
Bare in mind that I was an adolescent and I thought ti was cool; but, she recognized me and I ended up getting kicked up out of school for three days, ended up with a weeks detention and I had to apologize to the young girl.
Boys will be boys.
However, in the aftermath of Columbine shooting, school districts have to take a "zero tolerence" policy when it comes to juvenile antics and I have no sympathy for what these 17 years olds did. They knew exactly what they were doing and this was no prank, despite what others may think. It takes calculated thought to plan something like this and I have to support the school administrators and the school district because this amounts to an assault.
While some of us may find it funny, it's not. Water balloons are something you do when you're at home, not on school property. These students knew what they were doing was wrong and now they'll have to live with the consequences. They're going to find out now because they're not only just starting to become adults living in the real world but they're going to learn a valuable lesson that everything you do has consequences.
This is all due to the fact that morons re-elected a president who doesn't respect the constitution. Obama simply thinks that only government has constitutional rights and that if you're someone they don't like, you don't get constitutional rights.
The U.S. Constitution has been under attack a lot more since Obama took office. I hate to say but when the Departmenty of Justice has been the single department that has been singling out everyone in this country, then there's a serious breakdown. And I seem to recall someone stating that Obama is very familiar with constitutional law.
The man is a moron. I'm just waiting because things are reaching a boiling point where Americans aren't going to take these attacks lying down any longer. Our country is simply under attack by Democrats and Republicans.
The constitution should never be interpreted by politicians. That's something that should be left up to the courts.
Without commenting on Prenda's legal matters, every attorney knows that it is required to go through the process of appealing any decision handed down by any judge. They cannot jump or skip through the appeals process.
This is a lesson that they should have paid attention in regards to the fight over Obamacare. Even though attorneys are aware that certain courts will refuse to grant their motions, they are still required, by law, to go through the long and very drawn out appeals process.
Instead, Prenda tried to skip several hoops by going straight to the appeals court which slapped down their obvious subterfuge. Now, they have to pay an additional $1,000 per day fine past the date they were supposed to pay that judgment that Judge Otis Wright handed down.
These police officers were doing their jobs. It's the hooligans who were filming these police officers who should have the book thrown at them by the judge for antagonizing these officers from doing their jobs.
And, despite what you may want to believe, police officers have been doing random sobriety tests for years, even before this whole mess started regarding videotaping police officers while they are doing their jobs.
I find it totally disingenuous that everyone is complaining about these cops doing their job and yet if they weren't doing their jobs, everyone would be complaining about "where are the police when these crimes are being committed"?
It's funny how too many Americans are so concerned with filming these police officers while they are doing their job and these same Americans seem to be wearing their morals and ethics on their sleeves so that when the police aren't doing their jobs they make a 180 degree turn and ask "where are the police".
Everytime I read about police arresting someone for videotaping them in public, I always notice how the police officers largely ignore these citizens who are videotaping them until these same citizens decide to take it upon themselves to approach these officers.
Are these people stupid? You're going to approach an armed officer of the law while they are trying to lock down a crime scene or while they are trying to do their job and you want to interfere with them?
These are the same citizens who would stand out in the middle of the freeway, hoping that some idiot in a semi truck will turn their vehicle away at the last minute.
Thanks for reporting on this. When I submitted this a few days ago, I didn't think Techdirt would cover it. But, it was odd because many news media websites had also supported "World Nutella Day" and it had became so huge that the event and the fan website had become a 'media covered event" and now Nutella is shutting it down.
I wonder if Nutella is just trying to gain control over this in an effort to make money from it. But, it's a crying shame because Nutella has been getting slammed from Nutella consumers and they're hitting back with a lot of hateful comments aimed at Nutella's direction.
I think this is something that Nutella needs to step back and admit that they made a mistake.
These officers in this video should be commended for the restraint they showed and only reacted after the young lady who was filming them decide to make her presence known by approaching the officer and then trying to interfere with his job.
Plus, the young lady who has filmed this has a history of provoking police officers, as has been noted on her own youtube channel by other youtube commenters.
She was deliberately looking to get arrested by the police.
I'm so sick to death of these morons and their desire to provoke police officers while they are doing their jobs. While I believe the police officers went too far overboard, I'm just sick of these so-called self-righteous "copper groupies" who are only out for one thing, and that is to antagonize these officers for doing their jobs.
While there are some circumstances of police brutality that videotaping does catch, this lady filming this is a complete moron. When you come across a best of bees, do you poke the bees nest to get a response? Hell no, you don't.
Exactly what are you benefiting from by filming police officers? Are you a groupie? Then, join the police force. I'm certain you wouldn't want police officers filming you while you are in your yard or inside your home. These are nothing more than attention seeking idiots who are looking to provoke the police into doing something that they don't normally do.
Notice in the video how the lady filming it approaches the cop and asks "what happened", to which the officer responds to her to go away. These officers didn't react to her until she started approaching these cops. This lady is nothing more than a nuisance which the cops only reacted after the lady started to interfere with their jobs.
While I agree that this new policy aimed at colleges and universities is a bit broad and takes a "zero tolerance" policy in regards to sexual harassment on campuses, I have to ask, "what took them so long"?
First, Washington never considered this to be an issue until 2013? Now that the Obama Administration has been getting one beating after another and they are embroiled in one disaster after another, the administration is trying to score some points but they are doing so for the wrong reasons.
Sure, draft policy for campuses that forces every campus to take every complaint of sexual harassment as serious as they would any other crime but it seems there are harsher penalties for cheating on an exam then there are for sexual harassment and that is simply unacceptable.
Finally, I think that the policy needs to be scaled back so that it doesn't chill free speech. If some people are talking innocently, or cracking a joke, and a female student happens to be walking by, I think that punishment deeming it as sexual harassment should be taken in context of the conversation. if the students were talking in a manner because they first saw a female student walking by then they should be penalized for sexual harassment. But, there are just so many innocent discussions that now stand the chance of being seen as sexual harassment.
Are dumb blonde jokes now considered sexual harassment? What about sorority and fraternity parties or initiations that often involve sex?
Paul Hansmeier is an idiot. As an attorney, he should be very familiar with the fact that no court in this country will allow him to proceed, whether it's criminal law or whether it's a lawsuit, as long as he's being investigated by state or Federal agencies.
Not only does it create a conflict but it opens things up for any client of theirs to demand a new trial based on their attorney's predicament with an ongoing criminal investigation, especially when that attorney is the subject or a criminal investigation.
Federal Judge Creating an Automatic Appeal for Defendants
This is ridiculous. Simply because the judge is saying that this is perfectly fine because it benefits defendants. I think the judge has it wrong. It doesn't benefit the defendant, it benefits the plaintiff.
The judge even states that by not allowing the joinder action that plaintiffs would not be able to "protect their copyrights in a cost-effective manner."
Excuse me, but, the judge is allowing joinder action because it's more cost effective for plaintiffs copyright lawsuits? If that isn't a Federal judge agreeing with the copyright industry and showing bias against those accused of downloading, then the judge is automatically creating an appeal for any defendant who appears within his courtroom.
Actually, they don't need to prove that anyone read, only that the creator of the published piece, intended harm, when they created the published work.
According to Wiki:
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. First, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps and they must also prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm.
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, the "former chairperson," does not need to prove to prove that anyone read it. The only thing he needs to prove is that they published it. The society, by publishing the article in the newsletter, showed intent to inflict injury upon the man's reputation, by painting an image of the man in a negative light.
It is not necessary to prove whether someone read the article, or not. To prove the basis of defamation, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant (the Society) intended to paint a negative picture of the plaintiff through the article. The fact is, that the society made a big mistake by approving that article for publishing, which the editors for the newsletter should never had approved, in the first place.
oublication, it really does matter. The whole argument by the society is that they shouldn't be liable because the publication was never seen by the general public.
That is not what defines slander.
Slander deals with the actual intent that publishing said article would create. If "one" person reads the article, it's slander, no matter the kind of "spin" you try to put it through.
Wikipedia defines Slander (or Defamation) as "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)."
This is slander. Fact is, that the society would have never been the subject of a lawsuit if they hadn't published the article. The minute they published the article, they slandered this man. The article doesn't even have to read by a single person, to prove slander, all one needs is a copy of the published article by the organization who published it.
Their whole basis is that they shouldn't be sued because the general public didn't read it is totally false. That isn't a valid argument in trying to get the lawsuit dismissed.
IN the end, the society is going to lose the lawsuit because they should have realized that it was a slanderous article. I'm just surprised that they didn't consult an attorney before posting that article since it concerned a person that they "ousted" in a dispute. Common sense should have told them to protect themselves before they approved the article for publication.
Instead, they rpobably didn't consult an attorney and because of the animosity between the "former chairperson" and the society, they should have realized that he would be looking for any reason to sue the society, since they removed him from his position within the society.
Claiming "qualified privilege" is a load of crap because the only people who can claim "privilege" are attorney's, anyone in the medical profession, and spouses (wife/husband). The society simply cannot claim privilege, even if being a member in the society has that written into their guidelines. The only thing that would do is force the removal of that member from the society for divulging the newsletter.
However, in this case, the newsletter was distributed to photographers, who were not even members of the society so they wouldn't even be able to claim privilege, even if the courts allowed it to.
His lawsuit has merit. I can't believe everyone is abdicating that nobody should be sued if someone slanders you with libelous comments. It doesn't matter whether or not someone read it. The fact is, that this society printed the comments.
It would be one thing if it wa sprinted and never delivered to a single person. However, it was delivered to society members as well as photographers not associated as members of the society.
In the end, the society should have been more careful about what they were publishing and they should be held accountable for their remarks. In this country, you cannot slander anyone, unless you can prove it. This is why people file slander-based lawsuits are filed all of the time, in the U.S.
Sounds like they're going to lose the lawsuit because if they had to sell the steam engine to pay for their defense, then, it means that this lawsuit is going to bankrupt them.
Not only was he using his lights or "flashers" in a manner that is a violation of traffic laws in the U.K., but he was also belligerent with the officer. The reason he was charged with obstruction of a police officer's duty.
If he had not been belligerent, maybe he wouldn't have been arrested or charged with this new offense and fined on top of that.
He flashed his lights to warn other motorists about the Speed Camera so they wouldn't get a ticket = i.e., helping other drivers break the law because the police were in the vicinity.
Fact is, the driver got caught violating the law. If a driver doesn't want to get a speeding ticket, then obey the speed limit.
If he's warning other drivers, he's helping them by telling them where the camera is so they can "speed" drive their cars around these "speed cameras."
Obey the Speed Limit and you don't have to worry about these Speed Cameras. While the police overstepped, they were right in arresting him because he was helping other motorists violate the law.
Simple Fact? Obey the Speed Limits, people. They are there for a reason. When you obey the speed limits, you don't get tickets.
On the post: Nancy Pelosi Saved The NSA Surveillance Program; Now She Should Help Kill It
Just like a liberal, to flip flop ... Democrats accuse Republicans of flip flopping but it's the Democrats who do the actual flip flopping.
On the post: Kern County Coroner Declares David Silva's Death To Be 'Accidental,' Heart Disease-Related
I thought so.
Nobody believes this piece of bullshit trickery perpetrated by the Coroner's office who is more linked to the police department and the prosecutor's office than they are to an independent and unbiased organization.
This report is nothing more than a farce designed to "officially" let the police department off the hook by explaining this man's lifestyle for what they refer to as "being drunk" as an explanation for calling the man an alcoholic.
This Coroner's report is a sham and should be called out for what it is. Now, how much you want to bet that Kern County is going to hold this up as a justification for beating this man to death and how they're going to explain that the nine police officers who used excessive force and beat this man to a pulp with police batons weren't responsible for him dying.
These are the same cops who would blame the doctor's for someone's death after a police car had ran a red light and killed a two year old with their police cruiser. (This never happened but it's this kind of philosophy that Kern County police are hoping that we believe).
On the post: So It's Come To This: Seven High School Students Arrested For Throwing... Water Balloons
Bare in mind that I was an adolescent and I thought ti was cool; but, she recognized me and I ended up getting kicked up out of school for three days, ended up with a weeks detention and I had to apologize to the young girl.
Boys will be boys.
However, in the aftermath of Columbine shooting, school districts have to take a "zero tolerence" policy when it comes to juvenile antics and I have no sympathy for what these 17 years olds did. They knew exactly what they were doing and this was no prank, despite what others may think. It takes calculated thought to plan something like this and I have to support the school administrators and the school district because this amounts to an assault.
While some of us may find it funny, it's not. Water balloons are something you do when you're at home, not on school property. These students knew what they were doing was wrong and now they'll have to live with the consequences. They're going to find out now because they're not only just starting to become adults living in the real world but they're going to learn a valuable lesson that everything you do has consequences.
On the post: Ridiculous Timing: Obama Administration Responds To Spying On AP By Pushing Journalist Shield Law That Wouldn't Matter
The U.S. Constitution has been under attack a lot more since Obama took office. I hate to say but when the Departmenty of Justice has been the single department that has been singling out everyone in this country, then there's a serious breakdown. And I seem to recall someone stating that Obama is very familiar with constitutional law.
The man is a moron. I'm just waiting because things are reaching a boiling point where Americans aren't going to take these attacks lying down any longer. Our country is simply under attack by Democrats and Republicans.
The constitution should never be interpreted by politicians. That's something that should be left up to the courts.
On the post: Bad Day For Prenda Continues: Judge Rejects Stay, Adds $1k Per Day For Each Day They Don't Pay Up
This is a lesson that they should have paid attention in regards to the fight over Obamacare. Even though attorneys are aware that certain courts will refuse to grant their motions, they are still required, by law, to go through the long and very drawn out appeals process.
Instead, Prenda tried to skip several hoops by going straight to the appeals court which slapped down their obvious subterfuge. Now, they have to pay an additional $1,000 per day fine past the date they were supposed to pay that judgment that Judge Otis Wright handed down.
On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones
And, despite what you may want to believe, police officers have been doing random sobriety tests for years, even before this whole mess started regarding videotaping police officers while they are doing their jobs.
I find it totally disingenuous that everyone is complaining about these cops doing their job and yet if they weren't doing their jobs, everyone would be complaining about "where are the police when these crimes are being committed"?
It's funny how too many Americans are so concerned with filming these police officers while they are doing their job and these same Americans seem to be wearing their morals and ethics on their sleeves so that when the police aren't doing their jobs they make a 180 degree turn and ask "where are the police".
Everytime I read about police arresting someone for videotaping them in public, I always notice how the police officers largely ignore these citizens who are videotaping them until these same citizens decide to take it upon themselves to approach these officers.
Are these people stupid? You're going to approach an armed officer of the law while they are trying to lock down a crime scene or while they are trying to do their job and you want to interfere with them?
These are the same citizens who would stand out in the middle of the freeway, hoping that some idiot in a semi truck will turn their vehicle away at the last minute.
On the post: Makers Of Nutella Force Fan Who Created World Nutella Day To Shut It Down [Updated]
I wonder if Nutella is just trying to gain control over this in an effort to make money from it. But, it's a crying shame because Nutella has been getting slammed from Nutella consumers and they're hitting back with a lot of hateful comments aimed at Nutella's direction.
I think this is something that Nutella needs to step back and admit that they made a mistake.
On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones
Plus, the young lady who has filmed this has a history of provoking police officers, as has been noted on her own youtube channel by other youtube commenters.
She was deliberately looking to get arrested by the police.
On the post: If You're Going To Illegally Seize Citizens' Cell Phones, At Least Make Sure You're Grabbing The Right Ones
While there are some circumstances of police brutality that videotaping does catch, this lady filming this is a complete moron. When you come across a best of bees, do you poke the bees nest to get a response? Hell no, you don't.
Exactly what are you benefiting from by filming police officers? Are you a groupie? Then, join the police force. I'm certain you wouldn't want police officers filming you while you are in your yard or inside your home. These are nothing more than attention seeking idiots who are looking to provoke the police into doing something that they don't normally do.
Notice in the video how the lady filming it approaches the cop and asks "what happened", to which the officer responds to her to go away. These officers didn't react to her until she started approaching these cops. This lady is nothing more than a nuisance which the cops only reacted after the lady started to interfere with their jobs.
On the post: DOJ And Dept. Of Education To Colleges: Start Restricting Free Speech On Campus Or Kiss Your Federal Funding Goodbye
First, Washington never considered this to be an issue until 2013? Now that the Obama Administration has been getting one beating after another and they are embroiled in one disaster after another, the administration is trying to score some points but they are doing so for the wrong reasons.
Sure, draft policy for campuses that forces every campus to take every complaint of sexual harassment as serious as they would any other crime but it seems there are harsher penalties for cheating on an exam then there are for sexual harassment and that is simply unacceptable.
Finally, I think that the policy needs to be scaled back so that it doesn't chill free speech. If some people are talking innocently, or cracking a joke, and a female student happens to be walking by, I think that punishment deeming it as sexual harassment should be taken in context of the conversation. if the students were talking in a manner because they first saw a female student walking by then they should be penalized for sexual harassment. But, there are just so many innocent discussions that now stand the chance of being seen as sexual harassment.
Are dumb blonde jokes now considered sexual harassment? What about sorority and fraternity parties or initiations that often involve sex?
On the post: Prenda's Paul Hansmeier Asks Appeals Court To Delay Sanctions; Appeals Court Says 'No, Try Again'
Not only does it create a conflict but it opens things up for any client of theirs to demand a new trial based on their attorney's predicament with an ongoing criminal investigation, especially when that attorney is the subject or a criminal investigation.
On the post: Rice University Professor: SkyNET's Gonna Take Ur Jerbs!
lols
On the post: Judge Says Mass Suing People For Infringement Is Perfectly Fine And Even 'Benefits' Defendants
Federal Judge Creating an Automatic Appeal for Defendants
The judge even states that by not allowing the joinder action that plaintiffs would not be able to "protect their copyrights in a cost-effective manner."
Excuse me, but, the judge is allowing joinder action because it's more cost effective for plaintiffs copyright lawsuits? If that isn't a Federal judge agreeing with the copyright industry and showing bias against those accused of downloading, then the judge is automatically creating an appeal for any defendant who appears within his courtroom.
On the post: Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article
According to Wiki:
There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. First, the person must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps and they must also prove that the statement was made with the intent to do harm.
On the post: Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article
The plaintiff in the lawsuit, the "former chairperson," does not need to prove to prove that anyone read it. The only thing he needs to prove is that they published it. The society, by publishing the article in the newsletter, showed intent to inflict injury upon the man's reputation, by painting an image of the man in a negative light.
It is not necessary to prove whether someone read the article, or not. To prove the basis of defamation, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant (the Society) intended to paint a negative picture of the plaintiff through the article. The fact is, that the society made a big mistake by approving that article for publishing, which the editors for the newsletter should never had approved, in the first place.
On the post: Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article
That is not what defines slander.
Slander deals with the actual intent that publishing said article would create. If "one" person reads the article, it's slander, no matter the kind of "spin" you try to put it through.
Wikipedia defines Slander (or Defamation) as "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)."
This is slander. Fact is, that the society would have never been the subject of a lawsuit if they hadn't published the article. The minute they published the article, they slandered this man. The article doesn't even have to read by a single person, to prove slander, all one needs is a copy of the published article by the organization who published it.
Their whole basis is that they shouldn't be sued because the general public didn't read it is totally false. That isn't a valid argument in trying to get the lawsuit dismissed.
IN the end, the society is going to lose the lawsuit because they should have realized that it was a slanderous article. I'm just surprised that they didn't consult an attorney before posting that article since it concerned a person that they "ousted" in a dispute. Common sense should have told them to protect themselves before they approved the article for publication.
Instead, they rpobably didn't consult an attorney and because of the animosity between the "former chairperson" and the society, they should have realized that he would be looking for any reason to sue the society, since they removed him from his position within the society.
Claiming "qualified privilege" is a load of crap because the only people who can claim "privilege" are attorney's, anyone in the medical profession, and spouses (wife/husband). The society simply cannot claim privilege, even if being a member in the society has that written into their guidelines. The only thing that would do is force the removal of that member from the society for divulging the newsletter.
However, in this case, the newsletter was distributed to photographers, who were not even members of the society so they wouldn't even be able to claim privilege, even if the courts allowed it to.
On the post: Steam Engine Society Forced To Sell Steam Engine Because 13 Photographers Might Have (But Probably Didn't) See Article
It would be one thing if it wa sprinted and never delivered to a single person. However, it was delivered to society members as well as photographers not associated as members of the society.
In the end, the society should have been more careful about what they were publishing and they should be held accountable for their remarks. In this country, you cannot slander anyone, unless you can prove it. This is why people file slander-based lawsuits are filed all of the time, in the U.S.
Sounds like they're going to lose the lawsuit because if they had to sell the steam engine to pay for their defense, then, it means that this lawsuit is going to bankrupt them.
On the post: UK Man Convicted Of A Crime For Letting Drivers Know They Should Slow Down To Avoid Speed Camera
If he had not been belligerent, maybe he wouldn't have been arrested or charged with this new offense and fined on top of that.
On the post: UK Man Convicted Of A Crime For Letting Drivers Know They Should Slow Down To Avoid Speed Camera
Fact is, the driver got caught violating the law. If a driver doesn't want to get a speeding ticket, then obey the speed limit.
If he's warning other drivers, he's helping them by telling them where the camera is so they can "speed" drive their cars around these "speed cameras."
Obey the traffic laws and you won't get ticketed.
On the post: UK Man Convicted Of A Crime For Letting Drivers Know They Should Slow Down To Avoid Speed Camera
Obey the Speed Limit Signs
Obey the Speed Limit and you don't have to worry about these Speed Cameras. While the police overstepped, they were right in arresting him because he was helping other motorists violate the law.
Simple Fact? Obey the Speed Limits, people. They are there for a reason. When you obey the speed limits, you don't get tickets.
Next >>