I've met some very competent lawyers in Australia... three of which I had drinks with in Melbourne.
If I recall correctly one of the discussions was about incompetent buffoonish lawyers making the rest look bad. At the time we were talking about Prenda Law but it's equally clear that Mr. Gibson is an incompetent buffoon.
Mr. Gibson, should you choose to continue wasting your client's money in this fruitless endeavor to squelch free speech you will not only prove yourself an incompetent buffoon, but also unethical for wasting a client's money, failing to represent the law to them, and if you file this in a court of law, committing fraud upon the court.
I wish you well in crawling back into that fine little hole from which you came, and sticking to pretend-lawyering at the bus-stop you preach at daily. One day, no worries, Mate, you'll earn enough for a car... or a law-book... or education to gain an understanding of the law.
If you have video of a man from birth to indictment you will have evidence of a criminal act committed.
LEOs "could get a warrant" but IN THAT WARRANT law enforcement would need to specify exactly what criminal events they are investigating.
That is one of the protections granted by the 4th Amendment. It prevents that "video of a man's life" looking for a crime, instead requiring LEOs to specify the crime and then attempt to locate evidence it *HAD* occurred, not that *some crime of any time* *will* occur.
The Fourth Amendment seeks to protect us from such a fishing expedition. It is unfortunate that the Court has elected to disregard these protections. It's not unusual in our FOIA-ignoring statute-offending police/security state and the-people-be-damned. It's just not how the Constitution is read when read with the eyes of those who don't want to repeat the past.
Walter O'Brien is a fake. He's an idiot. He is retarded. He is a moron. This article is about this moron retard idiot*. It's not about a loser of a show or the losers who troll this thread**.
The people still talking about the TV show are clearly trolling. Likely they are either one of the words above (you did look up the definition, right?) or they are paid to be one of the words above. Either way they are trolls.
Sean, you have the patience of a saint... or Job. The former go to Heaven. The latter got lots of punishment.
Best wishes for being the former!
Ehud * These are valid English words. Feel free to look them up. A quick google search provides valid contextual definitions. Don't be a moron idiot retarded person and do look them up.
** Note: this is a thread. It's not a "room". AOL's free 3.5" floppies are long gone and we don't walk in and say "HELLO ROOM" any more. It's a discussion led by comments about an article. I know this is confusing... to those who fit under point 1 above.
...or MLB or NHL or NCAA or the MPAA ... or anyone seeking to make financial windfalls by either providing under license or locking up and preventing others from accessing i̶m̶a̶g̶i̶n̶a̶r̶y̶ intellectual property.
The problem is our archaic laws and the nouveau judicial and lobbyist-fueled interpretation that seeks to support these lockdowns.
The title of this piece is telling. It's about trademarks. The NFL has not used "The Big Game" in commerce, and others have, predating their use. Each of those two criteria alone would -normally- doom a trademark application. Together it would guarantee no such trademark be granted. But... the NFL is a special beast.
Taxes? The NFL is special. Having its staff have an unheard-of number of injuries and concussions and brain damage and no inquiries, no congressional committees, no OSHA paperwork? The NFL is special.
Why should getting a trademark on something others have used and they never have be different?
The problem isn't really the NFL. It's the corrupt system that supports this and other abuses by other well-heeled parties.
The first time some lawyer for some IP plaintiff demanded the court hand over the defendant domain-name to the plaintiff everybody this it was absurd -- and it was. Now, it's not only taken for granted, but it's done regularly with no basis in law. Worse yet, the US DoJ and DHS set the example by "seizing" domain names without legal basis, holding them without legal basis and with no criminal nor civil charges, and eventually --years later-- restoring them.
What is needed is for both the victims of this and the rest of us to stop begging the question and accepting that this is legitimate. There is no basis in law for this and we should exhort our lobbyist-bought-out "representatives" to be aware of this.
Nobody can seize your home if you violate someone's trademark in it. Nobody can take the title to your car if you violate someone's copyright in it. Nobody can take your big billboard (Clearchannel-style) if you're putting an infringing advertisement on it. So if domain names are property, there is no precedent.
If domain-names are intellectual property then I shudder to think of where they'd fit (copyright, trademark, patent, trade-secret) but in NONE of those cases do you give your patent over to someone who says you're using it to infringe. Same for copyrights, trademarks, and trade-secrets.
It's time to quit ignoring the elephant in the room and get Congress to step up and stop the courts from taking a thing from one person and giving it to another without a basis in law. This is not Nottingham, and no IP plaintiff is Robin Hood.
The unfortunate thing is that the girl's symptoms point to clinical depression. Instead of recognizing the psychological condition and getting her treatment the mother removed WiFi from the house and went on this campaign.
Had the girl been given professional help likely she would be alive, happy, thriving, growing, learning, and her kookie mother would not be giving interviews.
--- The power of radio waves diminishes as the inverse square of the distance. Cell-tower workers do wear protective gear because they are directly in contact with a tower transmitting at 500 watts. That same 500 watts of effective radidative power (ERP) is 5 watts at the ground 20ft below, and negligible in the air from a tower many feet away. https://www.fcc.gov/guides/human-exposure-rf-fields-guidelines-cellular-and-pcs-sites
WiFi routers put out less than one watt, which at 10 feet is also negligible -- less than a lot of radio waves emitted by the universe which we call "background radiation".
It is not longer government by the people or for the people. If it ever was.
Washington is filled with corrupt self-dealing swindlers who line their pockets with taxpayer funds either directly or indirectly (from lobbyists who then get taxpayer-funded programs handed their way).
Each year they get more brazen, more blatent in their thuggery and their evisceration of our rights, and in their theft.
It's only a matter of time before the sheeple who bleat "Baahhh (D)" or "Bahhh (R)" wake up to the fact that whatever letter you claim as your "party", the real party is in DC and you're not invited.