"The DHS has no business infiltrating groups participating in protected speech, just like it has no business compiling dossiers on journalists."
I think you've forgotten the purpose(s) of the DHS, which include, but are not limited to, gathering intelligence to thwart terrorists. I know most people think white people who are not Muslims cannot commit terrorism, but that's sophistry. Basically, after 9/11, a panicked populace allowed the neocons to install a fascist secret police. There were warnings at the time. Do you remember that they can demand your local library provide them with a list of all books you've borrowed and are forbidden to tell you they have done so? The only thing we can do is hope that IF Biden is elected, he can be persuaded/pressured to reexamine the monster he voted for. I don't think it's going to happen.
If you had done a Google search on "state secrets doctrine" you would have found the precedent this judge is constrained by in the Reynolds decision in 1953. This was one of many Supreme Court decisions I think went against the Constitution and simple justice. Look for many more in coming years as the Federalist Society judges the Republicans have been stuffing into lifetime appointments render their judgments. The doctrine has been used a lot since 9/11
There's nothing new about this. It goes back to the Supreme Court's <i>Reynolds</i> decision in 1953. It's been frequently used since 9/11 to withhold standing from plaintiffs. There was a lot of hope Obama would restrict its use, but he continued it, and then went on to create the "kill list." I have many grievances against Obama, but that one is the greatest. The worst thing is, if you're placed on the "kill list," there's nothing you can do. Back when it was widely known that Anwar al-Awlaki was scheduled to be killed many people were saying he should "turn himself in," but how could he? He was never charged with any crime. "Turn himself in" to whom? For what? Same with Mr. Kareem.
You probably weren't aware of the huge assault on home owners in 2009-10. Have you ever heard of Florida's "Rocket Docket?" Have you ever heard of DocX? In Florida (and Arizona and several other states) approval of a court is required before a mortgage holder can repossess real estate. During the subprime boom millions of original documents were simply shredded after the transfer of the mortgages were recorded in a private data base called MERS, rather than at the County Clerk's office as required by law. When the banks went to foreclose, they hired the "document reconstruction" firm, DocX, to "recreate" the missing documents. They did this by simply forging the documents. If the debtors pointed out that the documents the banks presented were notarized by people who were dead on the date of their signature, the judges would tell the banks to take back the documents and bring the correct ones. If the debtors pointed out that the documents were signed by people who worked at a different company than the one named, the judge usually told the bank to take back their document and bring the correct one at the next session. It it too lengthy a story to tell in all its horror here. Literally millions of forged documents were presented to the courts and the courts accepted them because otherwise the banks could not have foreclosed. That would be unacceptable to the courts.
I am not a lawyer, and the media companies have managed to confuse and corrupt "intellectual property" to the point that a little old lady can be imprisoned for thirty years if her eight-year-old granddaughter downloads a picture, but I would have thought that if I commission an artist to produce a particular work, and I pay that artist the agreed fee, then I am the sole owner of the said work with all rights attached, including copyright. If a municipality commissioned a statue and then paid the artist, the municipality must be the copyright holder, not the artist. Or is copyright a multiple-owner kind of thing? That is, when I'm going to use a picture it's not enough to search for one copyright holder, there may be a couple of dozen and I have to find them all?
Second, Mr. Levy is a typical American lawyer who thinks American law rules the world.
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Throughout his letter Mr. Levy repeats that he is not versed in Australian law, so cannot comment on the likelihood of Stuart prevailing there. He then goes on to explain what American law is in different jurisdictions. It appears that in order to get a judgement against Masnick he would have to sue in a California court. An Australian court cannot impose a lien on property in California.
When I google "mills oakley lawyers melbourne australia," the first link that comes up is, "Lawyers Melbourne - Qualified Personal Injury Experts," which leads me to think it's a gang of ambulance chasers. On their home page they say, "Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff...", so I think I can conclude that this Stuart Gibson is probably an unpaid intern who is probably working off the books. Oh, no, wait, he's actually one of their 500 staff. Not even high enough up to have the photographer help him look a little better. Blue tie with grey suit? Unfocused look. Not looking at the camera, but off into the distance. Wonder how much he charges per billable hour. Wonder how many billable hours he's generated from this farce.
Oh, wow, I haven't seen that for years! I love Strine slang, too. I'm going to have to watch for chances to use "flippin' drongo" for the next couple of weeks.
The whole letter was a delight to read. My only complaint was that it was written at a high school reading level, probably too difficult for Mr. Gibson to easily understand. I've read that Trump speaks at a third grade level, which would probably be more suitable. By the way, IANAL, so it's not as if the language was obscure or overly technical.
I expected the more passionate people to get some space, but I was overoptimistic. Six corporations own 95% of American media, and they obviously don't want to hear any objections. Note that for every one of those six corporations, there is one person who really decides what corporate policy is going to be. This is how our public debate is decided now. Thanks so much, Bill Clinton.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by procopius.
Have you forgotten the Patriot Act?
"The DHS has no business infiltrating groups participating in protected speech, just like it has no business compiling dossiers on journalists."
I think you've forgotten the purpose(s) of the DHS, which include, but are not limited to, gathering intelligence to thwart terrorists. I know most people think white people who are not Muslims cannot commit terrorism, but that's sophistry. Basically, after 9/11, a panicked populace allowed the neocons to install a fascist secret police. There were warnings at the time. Do you remember that they can demand your local library provide them with a list of all books you've borrowed and are forbidden to tell you they have done so? The only thing we can do is hope that IF Biden is elected, he can be persuaded/pressured to reexamine the monster he voted for. I don't think it's going to happen.
Re: Re: Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is pos
If you had done a Google search on "state secrets doctrine" you would have found the precedent this judge is constrained by in the Reynolds decision in 1953. This was one of many Supreme Court decisions I think went against the Constitution and simple justice. Look for many more in coming years as the Federalist Society judges the Republicans have been stuffing into lifetime appointments render their judgments. The doctrine has been used a lot since 9/11
Re: It is impossible to define impossible when it is possible
There's nothing new about this. It goes back to the Supreme Court's <i>Reynolds</i> decision in 1953. It's been frequently used since 9/11 to withhold standing from plaintiffs. There was a lot of hope Obama would restrict its use, but he continued it, and then went on to create the "kill list." I have many grievances against Obama, but that one is the greatest. The worst thing is, if you're placed on the "kill list," there's nothing you can do. Back when it was widely known that Anwar al-Awlaki was scheduled to be killed many people were saying he should "turn himself in," but how could he? He was never charged with any crime. "Turn himself in" to whom? For what? Same with Mr. Kareem.
Re:
Who's the copyright holder?
Re: Response
I don't understand how you reach this conclusion. Throughout his letter Mr. Levy repeats that he is not versed in Australian law, so cannot comment on the likelihood of Stuart prevailing there. He then goes on to explain what American law is in different jurisdictions. It appears that in order to get a judgement against Masnick he would have to sue in a California court. An Australian court cannot impose a lien on property in California.
Re: Re:
On their home page they say, "Mills Oakley is a rapidly growing Australian commercial law firm, resourced by over 75 partners and more than 500 staff...", so I think I can conclude that this Stuart Gibson is probably an unpaid intern who is probably working off the books. Oh, no, wait, he's actually one of their 500 staff. Not even high enough up to have the photographer help him look a little better. Blue tie with grey suit? Unfocused look. Not looking at the camera, but off into the distance. Wonder how much he charges per billable hour. Wonder how many billable hours he's generated from this farce.
Re: Re: et tu Stuart Gibson?
Re: Re: Are You Sure?
Re: Re: Govt corruption in general
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by procopius.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt