I know that, though your stating the 'hearsay rule' and not what the layperson (which I was writing for) understands as hearsay, not whether it is an assertion that hasn't been tested (or available to be) by cross.
Also it's hearsay of what people have alluded to of what is on the video or would that be double hearsay.. ack.. truthfully I hate hearsay rulings and try to stick with admissibility concerns re documents and devices and let the case solicitors deal with those orrible human witnesses ;)
Maybe I should of stated more clearly
"On the other hand you have a court ordered inadmissible video showing the actuality or not of the offenses being committed which is not a public document nor most likely will it ever be"
Ah thought I'd read somewhere a while ago about Suicide notes & their legality, copyright, etc.
J. DeVoy an associate of Marc Randazza's over at the Legal Satyricon wrote about all this way back in 2010 and brought up a lot of the points that I mentioned above.
Eugene Volock also wrote about them (and how to maybe do an end run around the copyright problem) that is linked to by DeVoy and is quite relevant to this thread too. especially about how maybe no one owns the actual copyright anymore.
Wouldn't the suicide note be actually a public document since its is Evidence of a crime (suicide is a criminal offense) and therefore is an evidence object under the courts systems; is written in the vein of talking to ALL (public at large); was posted on a world viewable site; Since it is denigrating (in the extreme) the actual person who is taking the copyright legal action and the legal representatives who are representing that action this means they are absolutely conflicted in the matter and either need someone else to take out the matter or suffer those consequences.
Personally having read the note I can see the Guy thought he had nothing left to loose but wanted EVERYONE to know why he took the 'out' that he did and to make sure his kids knew about everything.
That absolutely then transforms the suicide note into a lasting legal declaration (Will) of what he wants to occur both specifically and implied. The implied is that his 'ex' gets nothing and that the document as read is FOR ALL. It also could be classified as an Ethical Will with all that implies.
Why would 'sexually suggestive photos' be a part of there education strategy? Or does that mean that 'sexually suggestive photos' are actually classified as Indecent Images (CP) everywhere else in the USA??
*shakes head in wonder*
Though it's good to see a US authority actually talking about sex and sexting and doing what the rest of the Western countries have been doing for the last 10yrs in regards to 'sexting'. Education, personal responsibility, and understanding that 'nakedness' is NOT illegal per se nor are 'sexually suggestive photos' (look at any marketing campaign for any product) is the real message that needs to be sent.
Also teaching kids basics of sex education re Contraceptives, STI's, LGBT, Ethics (leave morals out of the equation) & social dynamics is what should really be MANDATORY in all US schools. Again like the rest of the world does.
The problem here as I see it Mike is where do you draw the line as to what is appropriate or not. And who decides?
The legal avenue where a conviction could not be given based on faulty procedures or evidence has stated that this person is NOT guilty of the alleged offenses.
On the other hand you have supposedly (it's just hearsay since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic) a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.
Maybe the guy did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe his girlfriend is a victim of DV but who has that psychological problem (that most people do) of thinking that love conquers all and "he will change" so refused to testify [sadly a standard situation in DV cases]
Though to then turn around and state he should be removed from a position of whatever no matter how wrong YOU think it is is being a bit hypocritical in respect to other major cases you are and have followed over the years.
Also playing devils advocate on the boards behalf, this guy probably has a very specific contract that if they removed him based on allegations (because that's what they are) or the court ordered probabation (it's a minor matter) they would be in breach of a hell of a lot and the payout plus damages they would need to recompense the guy, however wrong that seems, would be excessive and a HUGE risk if they are coming into an IPO.
PS: The video in question doesn't need to be denied one way or the other since it was stopped before it's authenticity could be shown. that's why no one denies or otherwise its existence.
You forgot to add apathy into the reasons behind the screw up, one of the main reasons I have seen many cases fall apart worldwide. The other one being "omg ze paperworkz is too much" (laziness as you stated)
Here any phone found on a defendant if they are arrested and held for interview is classified as personal property and cannot be looked at in any way unless a warrant for that item is obtained first. This is even more so if they are then charged and placed on remand ( bail not granted) when that phone is then placed in high secured storage and only a court can order anyone to access it (not even defendant can).
If a phone etc is found in a vehicle or near where crime committed (or defendant arrested) then it becomes part of evidence structures and has to be logged in as evidence (or as property as above). Field analysis by standard LEO's is NEVER done on phones unless a warrant is obtained at the time (4hrs is max for detention before release or charge so ample time to obtain faxed warrant if deemed appropriate by a magistrate). So therefore as I said your lack of due process and removal of freedoms we currently enjoy is quite disturbing to us, especially when the USofA is touted as "the land of the free"
yeah they did. Its basically allowing people to freeze apps but it still doesn't let them uninstall them which is weird when you think about it.
Actually a lot of people still don't realise how much gAPPS now take up, especially G+ and maps. For older phones the new updates can go over their internal storage size. Which is why I try to get people to at minimum root the phone, downgrade (uninstall updates) of the gAPP they want and then MOVE it to SD card and update it again if they want to use the thing. Then uninstall all the useless stuff they would never use (Hangouts comes to mind) especially if they have an older phone.
Personally I don't see the benefit in the S5 over the S4 (basically same phone) and lately if people ask I am advising them to either stay with what they have (kitkat isn't all that great unless you go to new quadcore phone) or purchase a HTC One over the S5. Better phone IMHO.
and any forensic examination of the phone doesn't care either way whether you are using tasker (easy to circumvent) or something specifically written into your code via the framework or even within build.prop. Even plugging into USB and wiping has to rely on the phone sensing the USB port plugged in.. that's easy to control.
Without going into specifics (I wont even if asked) First thing I check is whether phone is rooted or not and particulars (context) of the case and owner. Also I clone SD cards (internal & external), SIM, etc before any actual volatile analysis is even thought to be attempted.
I know of phones that have been wiped externally, but they are outlier cases and things like faraday cages weren't used.
Trust me if we want to see what is on your phone (iPhones are more easier than Androids/Win actually) we will see it but ONLY after having an actual court order (be it warrant or subpoena) to verify that the analysis can occur. Well that's in my country anyway, what you do in the USA in regards to warrants (or lack thereof) already would be highly problematic at minimum here and illegal at worst.
I still own a full version of Encyclopaedia Brittanica (1992) as well as the "Great Books" Collection (2nd Edition - 60 Volumes) that they also published. As well as that I also have the Complete Oxford (updated with annotations) including theasurus's etc.
Interestingly I also have an older 1924 Encyclopedia as well which actually in some respects has more data in some respects (ie: "gunpowder recipes and practical uses") and is great to see how things change but also stay the same too.
As well as that I also have Blacks Legal Dictionaries ( a few editions) etc etc.
Though all of the above (bar the 1924 Encyclopedia) I also can obtain in electronic form to read and search at my convenience I still to this day prefer paper based books fr research and the enjoyment of reading and learning. Luckily I have instilled that sense into both my daughters who though "google' everything still would rather READ via paper.
Long live the OED and somehow I suspect the volumes will still be printed every so often.. might be a few decades between them though
I might be cynical here though wouldn't the DA stating they will not pursue the case (ie: Not defend the appeal) be an easy CYA for the DA's office & the state so they don't get slapped down hard by the appelate courts and get a "with prejudice" loss too.
Any US attorneys wanna chime in with whether or not a with prejudice can be obtained if the DA doesn't make a showing?
Also the charge of disorderly conduct I would surmise cannot technically be dropped (only quashed maybe) since the defendant has already been found guilty of it by a lower court and has not gone to a higher court yet on appeal. Or does your sentencing/charge system work totally different than anywhere else?
you're talking about vicarious liability with foreknowledge Which if 'upon balance' a 'reasonable' person would state that it is most likely being used for xxx illegal (not unlawful/civil.. that's where it should never occur) purposes then YES the vicarious liability should exist.
This then places the onus on the accuser to show that the provider DID know (not "should of" known) and that they had an obligation to at the minimum restrict access until at such time an authorised trier of facts makes a decision.
Though a 'primary purpose' has to be also proven.. and "just maybe", assumptions, "becasue I am butthurt" or "protect the children" have no bearings whatsoever on this. The bar needs to be set high
On the post: Ex-Wife Allegedly Using Copyright To Take Down Husband's Suicide Note
Re: Re:
Though yep any court cases would be interesting to look at.. Wasn't Kurt Cobains note a problem at one stage?
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also it's hearsay of what people have alluded to of what is on the video or would that be double hearsay.. ack.. truthfully I hate hearsay rulings and try to stick with admissibility concerns re documents and devices and let the case solicitors deal with those orrible human witnesses ;)
Maybe I should of stated more clearly
"On the other hand you have a court ordered inadmissible video showing the actuality or not of the offenses being committed which is not a public document nor most likely will it ever be"
On the post: Ex-Wife Allegedly Using Copyright To Take Down Husband's Suicide Note
Re:
J. DeVoy an associate of Marc Randazza's over at the Legal Satyricon wrote about all this way back in 2010 and brought up a lot of the points that I mentioned above.
Eugene Volock also wrote about them (and how to maybe do an end run around the copyright problem) that is linked to by DeVoy and is quite relevant to this thread too. especially about how maybe no one owns the actual copyright anymore.
On the post: Ex-Wife Allegedly Using Copyright To Take Down Husband's Suicide Note
Personally having read the note I can see the Guy thought he had nothing left to loose but wanted EVERYONE to know why he took the 'out' that he did and to make sure his kids knew about everything.
That absolutely then transforms the suicide note into a lasting legal declaration (Will) of what he wants to occur both specifically and implied. The implied is that his 'ex' gets nothing and that the document as read is FOR ALL. It also could be classified as an Ethical Will with all that implies.
On the post: Virginia Prosecutor Educates Sexting Teens Rather Than Prosecuting Them
*shakes head in wonder*
Though it's good to see a US authority actually talking about sex and sexting and doing what the rest of the Western countries have been doing for the last 10yrs in regards to 'sexting'. Education, personal responsibility, and understanding that 'nakedness' is NOT illegal per se nor are 'sexually suggestive photos' (look at any marketing campaign for any product) is the real message that needs to be sent.
Also teaching kids basics of sex education re Contraceptives, STI's, LGBT, Ethics (leave morals out of the equation) & social dynamics is what should really be MANDATORY in all US schools. Again like the rest of the world does.
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re: Re:
The legal avenue where a conviction could not be given based on faulty procedures or evidence has stated that this person is NOT guilty of the alleged offenses.
On the other hand you have supposedly (it's just hearsay since it was not shown in court and proven to be authentic) a video showing the actuality of the offenses being committed.
Maybe the guy did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe his girlfriend is a victim of DV but who has that psychological problem (that most people do) of thinking that love conquers all and "he will change" so refused to testify [sadly a standard situation in DV cases]
Though to then turn around and state he should be removed from a position of whatever no matter how wrong YOU think it is is being a bit hypocritical in respect to other major cases you are and have followed over the years.
Also playing devils advocate on the boards behalf, this guy probably has a very specific contract that if they removed him based on allegations (because that's what they are) or the court ordered probabation (it's a minor matter) they would be in breach of a hell of a lot and the payout plus damages they would need to recompense the guy, however wrong that seems, would be excessive and a HUGE risk if they are coming into an IPO.
PS: The video in question doesn't need to be denied one way or the other since it was stopped before it's authenticity could be shown. that's why no one denies or otherwise its existence.
On the post: Disgrace: RadiumOne Allowing CEO To Remain After Beating His Girlfriend
Re:
On the post: DOJ Whines That A Warrant To Search A Mobile Phone Makes It More Difficult To Catch Criminals
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Possession
If a phone etc is found in a vehicle or near where crime committed (or defendant arrested) then it becomes part of evidence structures and has to be logged in as evidence (or as property as above). Field analysis by standard LEO's is NEVER done on phones unless a warrant is obtained at the time (4hrs is max for detention before release or charge so ample time to obtain faxed warrant if deemed appropriate by a magistrate). So therefore as I said your lack of due process and removal of freedoms we currently enjoy is quite disturbing to us, especially when the USofA is touted as "the land of the free"
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Re: Re: Re: This issue is why I started rooting
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Re: Re: Re: Re: You can disable preinstalled apps
Actually a lot of people still don't realise how much gAPPS now take up, especially G+ and maps. For older phones the new updates can go over their internal storage size. Which is why I try to get people to at minimum root the phone, downgrade (uninstall updates) of the gAPP they want and then MOVE it to SD card and update it again if they want to use the thing. Then uninstall all the useless stuff they would never use (Hangouts comes to mind) especially if they have an older phone.
Personally I don't see the benefit in the S5 over the S4 (basically same phone) and lately if people ask I am advising them to either stay with what they have (kitkat isn't all that great unless you go to new quadcore phone) or purchase a HTC One over the S5. Better phone IMHO.
On the post: The Stupidity Of Installing Bloatware That No One Uses... And Everyone Hates
Re: This issue is why I started rooting
Just thought I'd put that out there if people wonder why I start laughing sometimes
On the post: DOJ Whines That A Warrant To Search A Mobile Phone Makes It More Difficult To Catch Criminals
Re: Re: Re: Possession
Without going into specifics (I wont even if asked) First thing I check is whether phone is rooted or not and particulars (context) of the case and owner. Also I clone SD cards (internal & external), SIM, etc before any actual volatile analysis is even thought to be attempted.
I know of phones that have been wiped externally, but they are outlier cases and things like faraday cages weren't used.
Trust me if we want to see what is on your phone (iPhones are more easier than Androids/Win actually) we will see it but ONLY after having an actual court order (be it warrant or subpoena) to verify that the analysis can occur. Well that's in my country anyway, what you do in the USA in regards to warrants (or lack thereof) already would be highly problematic at minimum here and illegal at worst.
On the post: Oxford English Dictionary: Killed And Saved By The Internet
Interestingly I also have an older 1924 Encyclopedia as well which actually in some respects has more data in some respects (ie: "gunpowder recipes and practical uses") and is great to see how things change but also stay the same too.
As well as that I also have Blacks Legal Dictionaries ( a few editions) etc etc.
Though all of the above (bar the 1924 Encyclopedia) I also can obtain in electronic form to read and search at my convenience I still to this day prefer paper based books fr research and the enjoyment of reading and learning. Luckily I have instilled that sense into both my daughters who though "google' everything still would rather READ via paper.
Long live the OED and somehow I suspect the volumes will still be printed every so often.. might be a few decades between them though
On the post: General Mills Changes Policy After Internet Did Not 'Like' Its Plan To Remove Your Ability To Sue If You 'Liked' Its Facebook Page
Re: Re:
There.. even better ;)
On the post: Can Anyone Name A Programmer Still Getting Paid For Code He Wrote In 1962?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Law School Trustee's Company Chills Critical Speech With Subpoena For Students' Personal Emails
Re: Re: Re: Short term vs. Long term
then thinks a bit
hmmmm
dammit!!!! You're correct ;)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Bow O minions before my Humourcentric greatness! LOL
On the post: Finally, Someone Acts Like An Adult: District Attorney Drops Charges Against Bullied Teen Who Recorded His Tormentors
Any US attorneys wanna chime in with whether or not a with prejudice can be obtained if the DA doesn't make a showing?
Also the charge of disorderly conduct I would surmise cannot technically be dropped (only quashed maybe) since the defendant has already been found guilty of it by a lower court and has not gone to a higher court yet on appeal. Or does your sentencing/charge system work totally different than anywhere else?
On the post: Eli Lilly Enlists Congress In Fight Against Canada For Refusing Patent On Useless Drug
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Patented items must be useful?
On the post: Court Rightly Finds That GoDaddy Isn't Liable For Revenge Porn Site
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This then places the onus on the accuser to show that the provider DID know (not "should of" known) and that they had an obligation to at the minimum restrict access until at such time an authorised trier of facts makes a decision.
Though a 'primary purpose' has to be also proven.. and "just maybe", assumptions, "becasue I am butthurt" or "protect the children" have no bearings whatsoever on this. The bar needs to be set high
Next >>