Well, I never thought I would say that these companies are legitimate. I can say, however, that at least Portfolio are a buyer of used debt. They then try to monetize it. I am not as familiar with Anchor but would be unsurprised if they were similar.
Some of the used debt is time-barred, and some of it has other problems, so it is generally worth defending. If you get a call from these people, tell them to send a letter and stop calling. If you get a letter, you or your atty can send an appropriate dispute notice.
If you get a notice for court, take it to a lawyer right away. Do not ignore. If you do not know what you are doing, paying a lawyer will generally result in a better outcome at lower cost, even in small claims.
There is often a fee-shifting provision. This may make the cost of the lawyer even more reasonable.
Disclaimer: The law in your state may vary. I am not your lawyer. Go away.
Not really any of our business. That is between him and his client. He might be handling it pro bono, for instance, because he is a big believer in their type of publishing; there would probably be an assignment of fees in such a case.
He may also be getting paid every month as he sends bills to the client. Or he could bill irregularly because he is busy with other things. All of that is between him and his client.
With all that in mind, I do remind people that the atty should not take an interest in the litigation itself. The rules on this can get complicated, however, because of legitimate contingency fee arrangements in tort cases and unconstitutional fee restrictions in worker comp cases. And things are at least somewhat different in your state.
The vendor did more than furnish a tool. It was an active participant. It is as though Smith and Wesson were handing bullets to a guy operating a single-shot rifle so that he could more quickly fire at his victims.
Here, the ``tool'' worked only with the active participation of the defendant Awareness. Awareness knowingly and intentionally, as part of its product, collected intercepted data. At least that appears to be the allegation of the complaint; it remains to be proved.
In the same manner that I don't have access to the coding of this website (I can only see the results, not the code driving it), I don't have any particular rights to code that may exist as part of an item
The situations are not analogous. I have may have no useful rights to a video of my neighbor reading a book, but if I purchase the book I have rights to my copy.
I can repair that book. I can take it apart and re-bind it as the old binding wears out. I can furnish new covers if I want. The author's rights to the words printed inside it are undiminished, but the rights to the particular copy are mine. I could, should I choose, rip out chapter 3 (the one with the nasty bits about Judge -- and the banking cartel).
I can highlight some of the remaining chapters. I can scribble notes in there. I can pass my copy along to a buyer, complete with my notes and the missing chapter 3 if I still have it.
Likewise, if I purchase some device, I gain no rights to the code inside it. I cannot sell copies of that code. But I can surely sell my device. Or open it up and repair it. I can rip out the offending chapter 3, the part which says ``do not work when vendor sends a disable code'', should it please me to do so.
All this works because I have the rights of ownership of my copy.
What happens is that the city decides to incorporate someone elses (sic) work into their law without consultation with or payment to the standards body
It is not quite as you describe. The standards agencies actually urge the adoption of their standards as law. See, e.g. Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Int'l, 293 F.3d 791,794 (US 5th Cir. en banc) (SBCCI urges local govts to adopt its standards as provided).
If you can have secret courts, why can't you have secret cases too?
Secret courts are an obvious evil. For the same reason, secret cases so qualify; I have one of those pending now and to date the court does not appear sympathetic to my views.
What is wrong with it? Well, I agree with the court in R. v. Sussex Justices, 1924 K.B. 256,259 (K.B. 1924) that it is not enough for justice to be done, it must also be seen to be done. And if it is not seen, you can be fairly confident that ultimately it will not be done, for as Justice Brandeis said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.''
Yes, there are rules. And the judge acknowledges that the rules were not violated. None the less, an outrageous sanction is imposed for expressly not violating the rules.
My personal impression from reading the order is that the judge was not impressed with the plaintiffs' cases. To the extent there was judicial discretion it would be exercised in favor of the defendants. The court even reduced the judgment to only twice the belated offer from the defendants, plus fees.
The judicial conduct in question appears to me likely to increase disrespect for the courts and the judiciary. However, it is in Ohio, and so it is possible either that the general regard for the courts is low, or they do not require judges to act in such a way as to encourage public confidence in their courts. I am not familiar with the law of Ohio, though I have spelled the name of the state on multiple occasions.
A trade mark is intended to assist consumers in distinguishing particular products and their origins. If I were to sell a snack under the Cheeto name, it would be infringement; the same is true if I were to sell malted battery acid under the Pepsi name. But if I were to say that I want a lunch consisting of Cheeto snacks and Pepsi malted battery acid, I should be correctly using the marks.
Here, the writer is correctly using the trade mark to identify a particular product from a particular vendor. That is the intent of trade marks.
Sure, Pepsi could say that it does not want to be associated with a Cheeto-faced ferret-wearing shitgibbon, but that is a political issue largely unrelated to the question of whether the use of the Cheeto name is correct to identify a particular product from a particular vendor.
Assume also that I insult Cafe Press at this point.
which law and regulation exactly are they ignoring
Many [all?] Uber drivers are operating cars which are licensed as standard personal transportation rather than carrying taxi licenses. Moreover, they are insured as personal transportation rather than as liveried carriers.
When one gets in an accident, I expect to see some interesting responses from the insurance company.
At this point, the injunction doesn't appear to have been granted
It happens that "muckrock" disagrees with you, and claims that they have are subject to such an injunction. Sure, we all know the trial court got it wrong. Most of us also recall that prior restraint is generally disfavored in the U.S.
The good news for the smart meter company is that the Muckrock website appears to have been created by a genius web developer, so it renders in such a way as to be absolutely useless. Someone thinks they know way more HTML than average.
In the future, they should not be allowed anything more complicated than wet string. In the mean time, however, when the injunction is reversed, the meter company will have the consolation of knowing that the documents are still made largely inaccessible.
We as a society will have to learn that everyone makes mistakes. Everyone has pasts. Everyone has teenage nudes on the web somewhere.
Not quite. Some people are so old that their teen years had passed long before car phones had cameras, and taking actual photos on actual film was a much bigger deal.
It did not tend to happen as often as kids taking improper pictures of themselves happens today because the barrier to entry today is so much lower. Of course this does not stop state's attorneys from treating it as being every bit as much a problem as it would have been when they were born.
The results are sometimes silly: a kid who takes a picture of himself is now a felon, and also the victim, and, yes, the law does appear to be an ass.
A court could issue a secret warrant that includes a prohibition against triggering the warrant canary
I would have serious doubts on this account. The govt may now have arrogated to itself the power of prior restraint, but the power of compelled speech seems to cross a line that has not yet been entirely cleared.
The govt may be able to command you to not say that you disapprove of producing ammunition to be used against Russian revolutionaries, Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616, but it has a harder time compelling you to endorse it. Compare Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, with WV State Board of Educaiton v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624.
A little more recently, Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 750 largely rejected the idea of compelled state-supplied speech. A requirement to say ``no warrant offensive to owner's principles'', in the case that the person in charge wanted to remove the visible warrant canary, would be hard to distinguish from any other state self-endorsement requirement.
What happens if a non-student sees the post and redistributes the offending art, say, in a web forum? Are the school attys going to go after that web forum? I see two potential answers to this question: they do, or they do not.
If they do not, then their claim against the student suddenly looks less viable. If the student finds out, he may revive his instances of the art, as well, on the theory that the mark holder (if such the school be) has abandoned its claims.
If they do, they run the risk of running into real lawyers who happy disassemble them and leave the pieces beside the road for rubbish collection.
This is the same as when you're ordered to provide a voice sample to police, a blood test if you're suspected of driving under the influence or any other such requests.
Not quite. A voice sample is not testimentary, though if the sample required was you saying ``I did it and am guilty'' there might be an argument. The blood sample is under the somewhat dubious ``implied consent'' doctrine.
On the other hand, giving the decryption key is testimentary. It provides a statement from you that
this is your device
it is under your dominion and control
you have knowledge of the content of the device
you are responsible for that content being there
Normally self incrimination is not required. Obviously in the state wherein our defendant finds himself, the law is different. Caveat: I am not licensed in his state, probably cannot spell its name correctly, and may be insufficiently familiar with the case law applying the US Fifth Amendment to Federal prosecutors and to the northern states through the Fourteenth.