Perhaps the scenario they're afraid of is like this: a terrorist calls up the "no-fly list dispute" number and demands to be taken off the list. The person handling the call replies "sir, you aren't even on the list" or replies "to get off the list you must [whatever]". Now, without exposing themselves to any risk, the terrorist knows if they've been found out.
Of course, if they are afraid of something like that, then they could require that to challenge being on the list you have to initiate the challenge procedure in person, where either: 1) you'll be arrested if you're an actual terrorist, or 2) if you're an actual terrorist who they want to monitor some more before arresting, they lie to you and say you aren't on the list, thus giving the terrorists a false sense of security.
I wonder if these people have so little understanding of how Google in particular and computers in general work, that they think since Google has made an algorithm to automatically rank web pages, then Google must be able to just easily create an algorithm to detect pirate sites. I mean, unless they're just grandstanding, their demands very strongly imply they think that way.
Ah, the grand old trademark Nuremberg Defense: it's not our fault we're acting this way, trademark law made us do it. ... There are a myriad of ways in which to wade these waters and come to an agreement that don't involve sending out threat letters to innocent content producers.
IANAL, but my understanding of trademark law is that a company can lose their trademark if they don't take steps to enforce it. Thus some companies think it's prudent to establish a paper trail of enforcement efforts by sending out threat letters to anyone who even looks at their trademark funny. This way if there ever is a case of someone actually violating their trademark, and the defendant claims that they didn't bother to enforce their trademark, they can reply "no, we did take steps to enforce our trademark, look at these gazillion and one frivolous threat letters we sent out to everyone and their dog".
So, according to this theory, all the President has to do is only ever directly communicate with his advisors, and have his advisors redistribute all communications to their ultimate destinations, and then everything the President does is covered by Exemption 5, and thus nothing the President does can be requested via FOIA.
Let's say that at the hearing Prenda says "we searched high and low for Lutz, but it's like he disappeared off the face of the Earth". Would the judge need to have some evidence that they're lying, or would "c'mon, that's ridiculous" (translated into legalese) be sufficient for the judge to issue sanctions? Further, lets say that they brought in documentation of their efforts to find Lutz (signed affidavits from neighbors saying they haven't seen him for weeks, a signed affidavit from his landlord that he suddenly stopped paying his rent, etc). Would the judge have to take that at face value and refrain from issuing sanctions on that particular issue?
Apparently, the day got off to a rocky start, after Ibrahim's lawyers informed the DOJ that they intended to file bar complaints against some of the DOJ legal team for their actions in court, specifically concerning "misrepresentations" made to the court.
To play devil's advocate, maybe the DOJ lied to its own lawyers, and the lawyers didn't know what had been done about the witness.
Perhaps you meant "hearsay"? Or "libelous material"? Since nothing in the article was covered by an oath to tell the truth, with the oath taking place in a formal proceedings, I don't see how "perjury" could apply.
In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback ... your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.
It looks as if the FBI is way too willing to extend itself permissions that haven't been specifically granted. Maybe the investigating agents felt Kelley meant to give the agency carte blanche access to her and her husband's email accounts, but was unable to articulate her desire to have her privacy violated thanks to the stress she was under.
The reason is simple: she forgot to say "Simon says".
Then the officer "observed" that Eckert was standing "erect with his legs together" and his "buttocks clenched." This was all the justification the Deming police needed
I'm not saying that this justifies what they did, but it seems that wasn't the entirety of their justification. It seems the police who did the stop were told by other cops that Eckert was known to insert drugs into his rectal cavity. The thing is, those other cops were from Hidalgo County, a different different county than where the stop happened, so how did they get involved? The only thing I can think of is that the Hidalgo County cops told the Deming City cops "hey, if you ever stop a guy named Eckert, search his rectum for drugs".