I've been stopped at "drunk driving" roadblocks. These are supposedly voluntary, but there isn't any option involved.
In theory, you can turn around and not "participate" in the roadblock. In real life that will immediately get you pulled over. Depending on the jurisdiction, if you stay in line you've implicitly agreed to the search. Regardless if this is true the police officer will tell you that consent is mandatory.
It always surprises me when 'real news organizations' take press releases and public statements at face value, and repeat them uncritically.
Meanwhile news spoofs such as the Daily Show dig back to previous statements, or the constitution, that directly contradicts what was just said. Why can they do a better job than "real" reporters?
The shocking thing about this is that CIA is saying torture was OK, and that the Senate doesn't have oversight or investigative powers over the agency. Somehow saying "it's classified" means that the constitution doesn't apply.
"I believed the information I obtained was accurate"
"This does not take away from the other facts presented"
He believed that people die from overdoses, and that it was so risky that 37 people died on the same day.
That's a person so misinformed, so wrong, that you should be biased to doing the opposite of what they are telling you to do. Or they are so invested in their beliefs that they suspend critical thinking about the subject.
I see this as the same situation as importing low-cost textbooks licensed for foreign markets.
Large companies want the benefits of an open world economy, moving production freely to optimize costs. But they don't want their customers to have the have same freedom to buy where the prices are lower, or the selection is better.
In this case the media companies want to buy their content on the worldwide market, while restricting their customers from doing the same. They want the government to effectively grant them a distribution monopoly.
I had heard of this before it hit the news. It was very credible, matching my preconceived ideas. I believed the story.
Later I learned that Cisco was pushing this story to win several large telecom contracts. Simultaneously they were secretly in the process of shutting down most of their US production, having gear designed and built in China, and outright reselling Chinese products.
Every time I think I'm cynical, something like this happens to show me I'm not cynical enough.
I hope the EFF pursues costs and sanctions against the lawyer that wrote such an obviously *bogus* subpena. This isn't even a colorable attempt at reasonable discovery. It's so over-broad, I'm surprised it didn't end with "and naked pictures of your mistress and wife".
That is purely a marketing name. There is an Angus breed, which came the Angus region, but that has little to do with the name. Pay the trademark holder money and you can use the name on just about any meat product.
Several contaminated hamburger recalls involved products with name such as "American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties" and "Range Fed Angus Beef Burgers".
The big 2007 hamburger recall resulted in a USDA investigation, and FOIA requests by the New York Times revealed what those products are. If there is any Angus breed beef in the burgers, it's a coincidence. The 'America's Chef' product come from at least four different facilities. It was mostly 'retired' dairy cattle, with fat from trimmings of better cuts and ammonia treated carcass scrapings (pink slime). It took weeks to track down where the various sources for a single batch of hamburger.
But back to the real point: if it says "Angus", it's probably the lowest grade meat product with a marketing spin.
There is likely no legal basis to charge any part of the settlement to the police officers involved. 'Qualified immunity' while acting in an official capacity is effectively 'full immunity'. They can be fired, eventually. Typically those in the process of being fired for cause resign first, with a confidentiality agreement in exchange for the resignation. So their bad acts don't even show up on their employment record.
At this point the hospital and doctors involved should be very worried. The staff may claim they feared for their jobs if they refused the police. Especially the doctor, who was, I believe, foreign born and trained might have this as a significant concern. That might transfer financial liability to the hospital, but it wouldn't prevent professional discipline. Perhaps they will claim they feared police retribution if they did not comply... that might be interesting..
Perjury charges would be difficult to sustain. The attorney could be repeating what they were told. Even something that comes across as an outright lie can be explained as a misunderstood message. A trial could take years, especially with the specific details, the procedures and the policy all covered under different 'SSI' rules.
On the other hand witness tampering can be immediately investigated by the court. It's much less dependent on determining intent, instead focusing on the facts and effect of actions. My understanding is that once the interaction with the witness is shown, the burden of proof shifts to show that it was not tampering.
It appears that the government back-pedaled on its assertion that a witness (the plaintiff's daughter) was not on the no-fly-list, and simply was late for her flight.
They had *firmly* asserted this to the court, even in the face of a document that said otherwise.
I'm hoping that there is an immediate follow-up hearing on witness tampering. Any change to the do-not-fly list will likely be immediately stayed pending appeal. But the issue of executive branch agencies blocking a witness from testifying against in a federal trial based solely on executive branch secret internal rules isn't something that can be pushed off to an indeterminate future retrial.
You would like to think that a federal judge would never end on the do-not-fly list. But these women should never have been on the list either.
The same lack of due process and review that had them on the list could allow an individual agent, on their own initiative, putting the judge's family members on the list. You can imagine the twisted logic of "close associates of someone that has assisted potential terrorists". Sure, it seems unlikely, but there is a huge difference between "that would never happen" and "that probably won't happen".
I'm hoping the judge sees the parallel between what happened here, and what the overall case is about. I'm guessing that he does, and it's simply not useful for him to bring it up. But it is appropriate for him to point out that what has apparently happened is effectively witness tampering, no matter how it is spun.
If this turns out to be true, it's an ideal example of the extra-judicial punishment that this case is about.
Without a trial, any due process, and with no notification or review, people summarily have their right to travel curtailed.
It's unconstitutional and un-American.
In this case it's directly opposed to the constitutionally established judicial system.
So what's the answer? "It's a mistake" and "It was intentional, but we won't tell you why" points out why extra-judicial punishments are unjust. As does the many variations of the same.
The only answer that works is "it didn't happen". It seems that's the way the government is trying to spin it. But if the evidence shows that it did happen, the governments doubling down by asserting that it didn't happen looks to be near-criminal.
Wow, that map is bogus. They must combine the maximum speed offered by a provider, and the bounding box of the service area extremes. In my home area the maximum 'DSL' speed is pretty much ISDN (768K or 1.5Mbps), yet it lists 10-25Mbps.
The cost for that is over $60, about 6x what I pay for Netflix. And they want Netflix and Google to start paying for access to "their" network?
There was a mention of a cashier's check in a hearing transcript of the Wright case. So I presume Prenda actually posted the bond.
I can't predict what they'll do here. This is a significantly larger amount of money than the Wright case, it's due in only 14 days, and it's difficult to see an appeal going anywhere. It's expenses rather than damages, and Prenda didn't dispute the rates or hours, so the appeals court isn't likely to reduce the amount.
My first reaction is that they won't pay. But without posting a bond for an appeal, the judge's finding of fact will be final. And that multiplies their difficulties in other cases.
The third theory, the one I subscribe to, is that Lutz is off on a serious drunk. Funded and encouraged by Steele.
His history of DUI and subsequent repeated need for Steele and Hansmeier assistance supports this. As does Steele's stories explaining Lutz's absence at hearings.
As for relying on Nevis law to avoid being named an alter ego, that's a weak argument.
We don't even know that Nevis law has any relation to the case. But since Steele brought it up, the door is open. We have a single document on point, a bad photocopy of the Nevis registration of AF Holdings. No document ties that corporate registration to any activities here. We have only testimony (from the Hansmeier deposition)and unsupported claims. There is no retention agreement. No evidence of direction being given to the attorneys by a principle. Lutz has consistently been unavailable for a deposition or cross examination. No money has flowed to or from AF. Its only claimed asset is a movie copyright assignment, which it apparently paid nothing for. And the assignment document contains a forged signature.
In short, there is no foundation for using AF Holdings to shield Steele's actions, and especially not for standing behind Nevis corporate law.
On the other side, we have the extensive evidence and testimony that Steele and Hansmeier conceived and directed this scheme. The OSC hearings were their opportunity to distance themselves from the "client". The burden of proof shifted to them, and they put nothing on the record to show that there was actually a distinct client. (Note that they wouldn't have need to testify to submit documents, so remaining silent doesn't excuse the lack of paper trail.)
I believe that the reference to Tesla needs to be corrected.
The data to refute the NYT reporter's story wasn't reported over the air in real time. It was physically downloaded from the car after it was returned.
That was actually one of the issues: when the reporter called customer support, they could advise him based on a guess about the current state of the battery, not the previous usage.
On the post: House Committee To Investigate NHTSA's Roadside Blood And Saliva 'Surveys'
I've been stopped at "drunk driving" roadblocks. These are supposedly voluntary, but there isn't any option involved.
In theory, you can turn around and not "participate" in the roadblock. In real life that will immediately get you pulled over. Depending on the jurisdiction, if you stay in line you've implicitly agreed to the search. Regardless if this is true the police officer will tell you that consent is mandatory.
On the post: Sen. Rockefeller Wants ICANN To Block '.Sucks' TLDs
War is peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
On the post: Hey Reuters: You're Wrong. John Brennan Did Not Deny Feinstein's Claims, He Admitted To Them
Meanwhile news spoofs such as the Daily Show dig back to previous statements, or the constitution, that directly contradicts what was just said. Why can they do a better job than "real" reporters?
The shocking thing about this is that CIA is saying torture was OK, and that the Senate doesn't have oversight or investigative powers over the agency. Somehow saying "it's classified" means that the constitution doesn't apply.
On the post: Police Chief Testifies Against Legalizing Marijuana With Parody Newspaper Article
"This does not take away from the other facts presented"
He believed that people die from overdoses, and that it was so risky that 37 people died on the same day.
That's a person so misinformed, so wrong, that you should be biased to doing the opposite of what they are telling you to do. Or they are so invested in their beliefs that they suspend critical thinking about the subject.
On the post: Australian Broadcasters, Netflix Competitors Pout Because Netflix Hasn't Banned VPN Users Yet
Large companies want the benefits of an open world economy, moving production freely to optimize costs. But they don't want their customers to have the have same freedom to buy where the prices are lower, or the selection is better.
In this case the media companies want to buy their content on the worldwide market, while restricting their customers from doing the same. They want the government to effectively grant them a distribution monopoly.
On the post: King Backs Off Ridiculously Broad 'Candy' Trademark, Will Still Be Obnoxious In Other Ways
Yet somehow they weren't infringing the earlier trademark?
On the post: U.S.: We Have No Evidence Or Credibility On This Whatsoever, But Don't Use Huawei Because China Might Spy On You
Later I learned that Cisco was pushing this story to win several large telecom contracts. Simultaneously they were secretly in the process of shutting down most of their US production, having gear designed and built in China, and outright reselling Chinese products.
Every time I think I'm cynical, something like this happens to show me I'm not cynical enough.
On the post: Podcasting Patent Troll Files Bogus Subpoena To Intimidate Donors To EFF's 'Save Podcasting' Campaign
On the post: DailyDirt: Food Forensics For Fighting Fraud
That is purely a marketing name. There is an Angus breed, which came the Angus region, but that has little to do with the name. Pay the trademark holder money and you can use the name on just about any meat product.
Several contaminated hamburger recalls involved products with name such as "American Chef’s Selection Angus Beef Patties" and "Range Fed Angus Beef Burgers".
The big 2007 hamburger recall resulted in a USDA investigation, and FOIA requests by the New York Times revealed what those products are. If there is any Angus breed beef in the burgers, it's a coincidence. The 'America's Chef' product come from at least four different facilities. It was mostly 'retired' dairy cattle, with fat from trimmings of better cuts and ammonia treated carcass scrapings (pink slime). It took weeks to track down where the various sources for a single batch of hamburger.
But back to the real point: if it says "Angus", it's probably the lowest grade meat product with a marketing spin.
On the post: Man Subjected To Multiple Rectal Searches And Enemas By Police Officers Receives $1.6 Million Settlement
At this point the hospital and doctors involved should be very worried. The staff may claim they feared for their jobs if they refused the police. Especially the doctor, who was, I believe, foreign born and trained might have this as a significant concern. That might transfer financial liability to the hospital, but it wouldn't prevent professional discipline. Perhaps they will claim they feared police retribution if they did not comply... that might be interesting..
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Rubber Band Guns
That's a bit of a red flag. There have been a rash of kickstarter "projects" that are really reselling existing imported items.
Given the construction, laser cut plywood and hardware store nylon fasteners, this probably is a legitimate kickstarter.
On the post: Witness In No Fly List Trial, Who Was Blocked From Flying To The Trial, Shows That DOJ Flat Out Lied In Court
Perjury vs. witness tampering: burden of proof...
On the other hand witness tampering can be immediately investigated by the court. It's much less dependent on determining intent, instead focusing on the facts and effect of actions. My understanding is that once the interaction with the witness is shown, the burden of proof shifts to show that it was not tampering.
On the post: Feds Insist It Must Be Kept Secret Whether Or Not Plaintiff In No Fly List Trial Is Actually On The No Fly List
They had *firmly* asserted this to the court, even in the face of a document that said otherwise.
I'm hoping that there is an immediate follow-up hearing on witness tampering. Any change to the do-not-fly list will likely be immediately stayed pending appeal. But the issue of executive branch agencies blocking a witness from testifying against in a federal trial based solely on executive branch secret internal rules isn't something that can be pushed off to an indeterminate future retrial.
On the post: Judge In No Fly Case Explains To DOJ That It Can't Claim Publicly Released Info Is Secret
The same lack of due process and review that had them on the list could allow an individual agent, on their own initiative, putting the judge's family members on the list. You can imagine the twisted logic of "close associates of someone that has assisted potential terrorists". Sure, it seems unlikely, but there is a huge difference between "that would never happen" and "that probably won't happen".
I'm hoping the judge sees the parallel between what happened here, and what the overall case is about. I'm guessing that he does, and it's simply not useful for him to bring it up. But it is appropriate for him to point out that what has apparently happened is effectively witness tampering, no matter how it is spun.
On the post: Case Over No-Fly List Takes Bizarre Turn As Gov't Puts Witness On List, Then Denies Having Done So
Extra-judicial punishment demonstrated
Without a trial, any due process, and with no notification or review, people summarily have their right to travel curtailed.
It's unconstitutional and un-American.
In this case it's directly opposed to the constitutionally established judicial system.
So what's the answer? "It's a mistake" and "It was intentional, but we won't tell you why" points out why extra-judicial punishments are unjust. As does the many variations of the same.
The only answer that works is "it didn't happen". It seems that's the way the government is trying to spin it. But if the evidence shows that it did happen, the governments doubling down by asserting that it didn't happen looks to be near-criminal.
On the post: Anti-Net Neutrality Advocates Back To Making Bogus Arguments
The cost for that is over $60, about 6x what I pay for Netflix. And they want Netflix and Google to start paying for access to "their" network?
On the post: Court Says Team Prenda 'Flat-Out Lied' To Court; Hits Them With $261k More In Attorneys' Fees To Pay Up
I can't predict what they'll do here. This is a significantly larger amount of money than the Wright case, it's due in only 14 days, and it's difficult to see an appeal going anywhere. It's expenses rather than damages, and Prenda didn't dispute the rates or hours, so the appeals court isn't likely to reduce the amount.
My first reaction is that they won't pay. But without posting a bond for an appeal, the judge's finding of fact will be final. And that multiplies their difficulties in other cases.
On the post: Myth Busting: Yes, An Advertisement Can Be Fair Use Parody
The song is a key element, it's used in its entirety, it's not a parody, and it's a commercial advertisement.
This isn't "transformative", it is "slightly modified".
On the post: Latest Team Prenda Shenanigans: Arguing Nevis Law Applies In California; Also Mark Lutz Makes An Appearance... Sorta
His history of DUI and subsequent repeated need for Steele and Hansmeier assistance supports this. As does Steele's stories explaining Lutz's absence at hearings.
As for relying on Nevis law to avoid being named an alter ego, that's a weak argument.
We don't even know that Nevis law has any relation to the case. But since Steele brought it up, the door is open. We have a single document on point, a bad photocopy of the Nevis registration of AF Holdings. No document ties that corporate registration to any activities here. We have only testimony (from the Hansmeier deposition)and unsupported claims. There is no retention agreement. No evidence of direction being given to the attorneys by a principle. Lutz has consistently been unavailable for a deposition or cross examination. No money has flowed to or from AF. Its only claimed asset is a movie copyright assignment, which it apparently paid nothing for. And the assignment document contains a forged signature.
In short, there is no foundation for using AF Holdings to shield Steele's actions, and especially not for standing behind Nevis corporate law.
On the other side, we have the extensive evidence and testimony that Steele and Hansmeier conceived and directed this scheme. The OSC hearings were their opportunity to distance themselves from the "client". The burden of proof shifted to them, and they put nothing on the record to show that there was actually a distinct client. (Note that they wouldn't have need to testify to submit documents, so remaining silent doesn't excuse the lack of paper trail.)
On the post: Renault Introduces DRM For Cars
The data to refute the NYT reporter's story wasn't reported over the air in real time. It was physically downloaded from the car after it was returned.
That was actually one of the issues: when the reporter called customer support, they could advise him based on a guess about the current state of the battery, not the previous usage.
Next >>