>>Now they explicitly demand that these clients make it clear they are not endorsed by LEGO when they use that channel to buy LEGO bricks
no.. LEGO asks them nicely. The purchasers can STILL refuse to state whether Lego endorses them or not. There is NOTHING Lego could do to the purchasers if they refuse to make a statement.
As for the discount.. Well LEGO is being looked at closely by the Consumer law powers that be in Australia for restriction on trade having an arbitrary structure on who can and cannot purchase at a discount. As for LEGO's politics?? Have you actually researched the History of LEGO and the Company behind it?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
>>>> my take is that it doesn't apply when your listening to (and recording) the conversation you're having at the endpoint (not 'over a system'), and especially when it's coming out of the speakerphone.
Sadly it also applies to the recording of audio coming out of a telephonic device by an external microphone etc.. Remember those suction cup microphones you could stick onto the old phones? They were illegal in Australia too :(
Our Recording/Surveillance laws are mostly all State based (and are somewhat different between the different State's) whereas actual interception of ANY communication system (tapping or using an external device) is absolutely verbotem.
Now if the device comes with it's own inbuilt recording device like most mobile phones do (or as Answering machines did) then it is quite alright under the Commonwealth (Federation of Australia) Law though might get you in trouble with the State laws..
>>> Your ideas may hold water if this was a criminal case in NZ, which it is not.
I never said it was, in fact its an administrative case that has to abide by criminal structures and ALL procedural fairness principles. Which is why I stated that AFTER all appelate judgements is the time to argue the points you are arguing.
>>> Honestly, if Kim is innocent, don't you think he would have long since come to the US to get this over with?
The principle of in dubio pro reo (which the US is supposedly all about) states otherwise. And I really cannot contemplate how you could even think that since it is equivalent to the "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear' fallacious argument. It is up to the plaintiff (The USG) which is also the prosecution to prove that all the elements of the extradition are met. In my Legal opinion they are not.
They are not trying to argue the criminal case (which it will be if sent to the US), far from it. They are specifically arguing the elements of extradition.
>>> He's arguing in NZ because they have a soft legal system with many ways for people like Kim to delay things for years.
WTF!!! Soft? you have just insulted the whole of the New Zealand legal system as well as Australia's and to a lesser extent Canada's and England's(UK).
Are you saying that all these law gruduates/students that are made to purchase style books that will never be normally used in the real world (our courts and tribunals are exactly the same as yours it seems) are being misled?
>> Selling access to it (under common law) amounts to a fraud
And here is the real sticking point, and what the appeals should (and most likely will) be based upon. Fraud, or false representations in this regard (though it might be a part of US case law) is NOT part of NZ law.
Dawson has done some fancy juggling of outlier cases here that are not IMO contextually relevant at all which means there should be no preponderance whatsoever.
Luckily NZ like other common law countries has a great appeal process that is also quick, Federal, and highly unbiased (2 of those are very unlike the USA - you can decide which ones).
I'll wait till I read the appeal and any appellate judgments until I make major overreaching statements here,. Though the 'fraud' and highly dubious 'laundering' charges are going to cause lots of handwringing by all sides.
Well this is a start to Consumer laws that the rest of the Planet (EU, Aust/NZ, etc) has had for over 30yrs or more [1975 was when Australia got our first major consumer laws].
Soon if you are all mature enough you might get to the stage where things like:
* Reasonable for life of product warranties are statutory (ie: Washing machines/Refrigerators have 10yrs or more life) * If something is not fit for use or as advertised the consumer (not the seller) gets the choice of Refund, Repair, or Replacement [ and for serious faults this extends to life of statutory warranties] * everything goods and services are covered. That includes cars, Houses, and other MAJOR purchases. * Corporations can not in any way shape or form be defamed. * Mandatory and Binding arbitration is an instantly voidable term in any contract for goods and/or services [though Business to business contracts ONLY have some binding arbitration ability still] * Anyone can compare one product to another no matter what a EULA can state.
It will take time, but maybe in the far distant future (probably another 30yrs) you too will have all the above.
Here read this article by an eminent Australian QC on why Australian defamation laws are absolutely not going to be allowed under your Speech Act because there are NON, NADA, ZIP protections for publishers in any way shape or form in this regard. No s230 counterpart or anything..
Trkulja is in the Aussie vernacular.. 'pissing up a rope'
It seems that Mr Trjulja went and saw "The Senior Australian Defamation QC" (what ever the flying fuck that is) who advised him that [at 17] "the posting is of and concerning to my reputation" (sidenote: any SC/QC who is advising a client, especially considering the barrister/solicitor structure, of this specificity needs to be instantly slapped with an ethics violation and/or struck off)
Maybe he should of seen a real one first. I don't know maybe one who is actually a QC, a member of the Victorian Bar, a Senior Fellow of the Melbourne Law School. Who is also the esteemed author of three editions of The Law of Defamation and the Internet (2001, 2005 and 2010) and of Collins on Defamation (2014) which are tomes used by all Australian solicitors, law schools, and barristers.
>>>What, pray tell, in the blog post is defamatory?
As far as I can tell, nothing at all..
Though the Victorian Supreme Court in regards to Defamation cases could read (and normally do) totally different.
Though as your learned counsel would no doubt explain to you (waves at Marc) this whole post is actually nice, succinct and could probably do with more snark. :)
Not unlike the defense pleading in this recent Queensland (another state of Australia) case of defamation where the plaintiff lost.. [ here's the article] [here's the hilarious defense pleading(pdf).. I lost it at "BS reality" in headings]
Though this from the judgement shows that the Streisand Effect is also alive and well in Oz too ;)
"The plaintiff also seeks vindication through an award of damages for the so called “grapevine effect” which concerns the natural and probable result of the original publication... The plaintiff points to the fact that after he filed his claim the matter was referred to in newspaper reports, professional journals and on a website that has a received more than 4000 hits. He says he is devastated and humiliated by these developments. In this case the “grapevine effect” is limited because, as noted earlier, the circumstances of the original publication were such that the natural and probable result was that it would be confined to the plaintiff, Sally and Jarrad.
It was the plaintiff who, by making the claim, called in an airstrike on his own position.[emphasis added]"