He wasn't up on murder for hire charges, so there was no point in nailing him on that.
The article here says there is some sort of valid complaint about how the court limited his defenses, but fails to mention that the court repeatedly asked for them to make the arguments. It was the defense attorneys who failed to do so. They failed to file the proper notice, failed to do so in a timely manner, they didn't make an ownership claim to the server in Iceland and so had no standing for a request to have that evidence tossed out (and the judge repeatedly asked for that because it seemed to be an obvious move for the defense).
She points out repeatedly how and why she needs certain information, and that tossing it into the ring on the last day of the trial is simply not permitted.
Her ruling in just one part is here: http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.173.0.pdf
The defense made various tactical decisions which backfired on them later on.
I assume Hansmeier will argue that he himself is an American who is disabled ... by ethical and legal standards of his profession, and as such should be able to sue under the ADA.
Or, maybe it was his bank accounts that have been disabled by Judge Wright and the various other rulings across the US, and by IRS and RICO investigations. Surely we can see how disabling that would be?!?!?!
The problem with Feinstein is that she is walking on the slippery slope of politics, her feet shot out from under her, and she is still convinced she landed flat on her elbow.
When NSA or anyone else purchases exploits on the marketplace, they are also not necessarily the only purchasers (who may be other governments), and the seller may not be the only one with the information for sale.
Making any sort of determination as to who else might exploit it comes down to dollars? That's odd. Is that really the only criteria, and does merely having the $ then make it ok to use the exploit? Isn't that part of the argument?
The weather report for the Steele household should be updated, it is now chilly with a great chance of squalls.
He might not like his mother-in-law, but my guess is her stock has gone up with people on the internet. She sounds like someone who sees right from wrong, and acts on it.
Seems to me that Lutz isn't able to flap his jaw or move his eyes unless he is sitting on Uncle Johns' lap. That could be considered weird in a court of law.
Did anyone at the Florida hearing notice if Lutz could answer while Steele was drinking a glass of water?
So, when they finally present their appeal to the federal appeals court in November will they have to take the 5th (again...)? Taking the 5th in their own appeal would be just too awesome to watch.
This is hilarious since all these verdicts are coming in with new evidence.
When he withdrew the money his records may show it was valued as less than what the bank claimed. After all, that's what the banks say when the clean out the wrong house during a foreclosure.
Not only that, but if they made him a manager (or CEO) as claimed then there would be a paper trail of some sort. Certainly some email or letters, contracts.
But, no pay, no paper, no communications, website filings using an address Cooper claims he never heard of in a state he has never been to.
And, he was discussing it with his father-in-law (a retired sheriff) since the start, according to his sworn testimony. He stated that they were waiting on hearing something further before taking it to the police. That is from page 25 of the transcript at:
http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.93.0.pdf
"There's not a case where we have not prevailed," insisted Duffy
The context of that is regarding the identity theft of Alan Cooper. I thought Judge Wright did rule on that and found that Cooper's signature was forged, he had sworn testimony to that effect.
That is more than not having prevailed in proof, it is now a finding of fact.
"None of us are interested ...", yet they post endlessly and immediately.
Hate to point out the obvious, but the traffic YOU bring is what keeps things alive.
Bored? Irritated? Whatever, solutions exist for you.
I will just point out the utterly obvious, that you attack the person at every turn, rather than the argument. Epic failure is yours to claim, you have proven yourself worthy.
If your audience is not able to comprehend your thorough instructions, perhaps consider releasing your intellectual property as a pop-up book.
How long until she files patents on her ideas and sues people for $3,400 in reverse-class-action suits? After all, her invention of using a long fork for roasting a marshmallow on an open fire (closed fires are owned by NSA). She could name them SaltmarshMallows.
They will probably argue that because copyright is more profitable, ever stronger copyrights mean ever increasing profits and therefore are good "for everyone".
Re:
Yeah, it was the prosecution who won this one.
He wasn't up on murder for hire charges, so there was no point in nailing him on that.
The article here says there is some sort of valid complaint about how the court limited his defenses, but fails to mention that the court repeatedly asked for them to make the arguments. It was the defense attorneys who failed to do so. They failed to file the proper notice, failed to do so in a timely manner, they didn't make an ownership claim to the server in Iceland and so had no standing for a request to have that evidence tossed out (and the judge repeatedly asked for that because it seemed to be an obvious move for the defense).
She points out repeatedly how and why she needs certain information, and that tossing it into the ring on the last day of the trial is simply not permitted.
Her ruling in just one part is here:
http://ia600603.us.archive.org/21/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824/gov.uscourts.nysd.422824.173.0.pdf
The defense made various tactical decisions which backfired on them later on.
I assume Hansmeier will argue that he himself is an American who is disabled ... by ethical and legal standards of his profession, and as such should be able to sue under the ADA.
Or, maybe it was his bank accounts that have been disabled by Judge Wright and the various other rulings across the US, and by IRS and RICO investigations. Surely we can see how disabling that would be?!?!?!
:p
The problem with Feinstein is that she is walking on the slippery slope of politics, her feet shot out from under her, and she is still convinced she landed flat on her elbow.
When NSA or anyone else purchases exploits on the marketplace, they are also not necessarily the only purchasers (who may be other governments), and the seller may not be the only one with the information for sale.
Making any sort of determination as to who else might exploit it comes down to dollars? That's odd. Is that really the only criteria, and does merely having the $ then make it ok to use the exploit? Isn't that part of the argument?
The weather report for the Steele household should be updated, it is now chilly with a great chance of squalls.
He might not like his mother-in-law, but my guess is her stock has gone up with people on the internet. She sounds like someone who sees right from wrong, and acts on it.
What a dummy
Seems to me that Lutz isn't able to flap his jaw or move his eyes unless he is sitting on Uncle Johns' lap. That could be considered weird in a court of law.
Did anyone at the Florida hearing notice if Lutz could answer while Steele was drinking a glass of water?
Ha! Beaten that fast!
They get Poutine. Yum, even without artificially induced munchies.
So, when they finally present their appeal to the federal appeals court in November will they have to take the 5th (again...)? Taking the 5th in their own appeal would be just too awesome to watch.
This is hilarious since all these verdicts are coming in with new evidence.
When he withdrew the money his records may show it was valued as less than what the bank claimed. After all, that's what the banks say when the clean out the wrong house during a foreclosure.
Re:
Not only that, but if they made him a manager (or CEO) as claimed then there would be a paper trail of some sort. Certainly some email or letters, contracts.
But, no pay, no paper, no communications, website filings using an address Cooper claims he never heard of in a state he has never been to.
And, he was discussing it with his father-in-law (a retired sheriff) since the start, according to his sworn testimony. He stated that they were waiting on hearing something further before taking it to the police. That is from page 25 of the transcript at:
http://ia601508.us.archive.org/28/items/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744/gov.uscourts.cacd.543744.93.0.pdf
"There's not a case where we have not prevailed," insisted Duffy
The context of that is regarding the identity theft of Alan Cooper. I thought Judge Wright did rule on that and found that Cooper's signature was forged, he had sworn testimony to that effect.
That is more than not having prevailed in proof, it is now a finding of fact.
Re: Re: I'm not impressed, either!
"None of us are interested ...", yet they post endlessly and immediately.
Hate to point out the obvious, but the traffic YOU bring is what keeps things alive.
Bored? Irritated? Whatever, solutions exist for you.
I will just point out the utterly obvious, that you attack the person at every turn, rather than the argument. Epic failure is yours to claim, you have proven yourself worthy.
Re: I'm not impressed, either!
Now, if only Steele was this punctual.
Re:
Or, even more accurately, what makes us believe they will even care if it is renewed? Just a few more laws to be in violation of.
If your audience is not able to comprehend your thorough instructions, perhaps consider releasing your intellectual property as a pop-up book.
How long until she files patents on her ideas and sues people for $3,400 in reverse-class-action suits? After all, her invention of using a long fork for roasting a marshmallow on an open fire (closed fires are owned by NSA). She could name them SaltmarshMallows.
They will probably argue that because copyright is more profitable, ever stronger copyrights mean ever increasing profits and therefore are good "for everyone".
Re: Re: Re: Go play with your stuffed tiger.
Nothing a quick trip to the vet can't resolve.
Re: Go play with your stuffed tiger.
Are you saying we can file a motion to have Mr. Steele fixed?