I was concerned by the courts concern of the reliance on Rule 60(b) by the lower court on the various reconsider motions. I would hate for this to be remanded on a technicality, although if it goes back to Judge Herndon, I would imagine he can find the right section of law to apply pretty quickly.
It seemed to me that the only points in Prenda's favor that got any traction was the 60 (b) issue which was brought up by the Judge and not Prenda's attorney, and the fact that Prenda had not had 14 days to reply to the itemized bills from AT&T and Comcast.
This got to a hearing quick compared to the other appeals. I take it that Prenda did get a bond posted in the original case. The last I knew they had just asked for approval as to form of a bond, and hadn't actually posted it.
How long do you think it will be before the US threatens economic sanctions?
I would read it like you read it if it were not for the "and this is protected by law."
part of this statement:
"Media such as DVDs are often protected by anti-copying technology to guard against copyright piracy, and this is protected by law."
I know the purpose of this article is fair use, but the Time Machine itself is just a lot of fun. I put in 500 BC and got multiple reference for the millennium containing 500 BC.
It appears that the system automatically expands the time period to give a reasonable amount of references. I got a decade worth putting in 1840 AD, the millennium worth previously mentioned for a BC entry, and of course just a years worth for more recent times.
There was a lot of work put into this both in finding and extracting the references, but in writing the program to present them. Again "What Fun".
Good thing I am not a politician...it seems so easy to figure this stuff out when you don't have to worry about who's going to pay for your next round of hookers and blow.
Looks like the Southern District of New York will soon see a rash of suits by the MPAA and their allies against anybody who does anything that they slightly don't like.
If I am going to correct you for imprecision, I should correct myself as well. The statement as reported by both Oralia and Kat was "a new BUSINESS, in a new industry"
My point was those two live people reported that he said he was starting "A new company in a new industry" They did not report that he said he was starting a new trust. Like I said, it probably means he is starting a new trust, but he just said he was starting a new company, unless you are reading different reports than I read of FCT.
While I'm sure "a new company in a new industry" means a new trust in some tax haven, I don't believe Lutz actually said that.
It appears that even Internet insults are transformative. This one from the Bible by way of Pete Seeger (may he rest in peace).
I was going to apply to AC, but your comment sums up the situation perfectly. Nothing else for me to add.
Wasn't the Brits. It was a British lady trying to return, but it was at LAX.
"See we didn't place her on the no-fly list, we just told them we were strongly thinking about it. If they then elected to not let her on the plane, how is that our fault?"
The second case was dismissed with prejudice. I hope that doesn't mean that there was any kind of settlement, with cash flowing toward Hans.
Hans has done things I didn't think were very smart in the past, but picking Health organizations to sue is plain stupid. Doesn't he realize in today's sue happy world health organizations have either in-house legal staff, or a Rolodex full of legal referrals. He needs to find some mom and pop small stores that will just roll over.
I'll reply to you, rather than to OOTB.
There is not attribution on the individual strips, but there is very much attribution on the Tumblr where they are posted, both to Schulz and to The Smiths.
Could you answer one simple question. If you are being censored, why am I still able to read your stupid post?
Re: Re: Concern
Thank you.