Mr. Price appears to be a stinking spammer of no great value. Yeah, I got his spam last fall. The odd thing was that, despite all the attempts to appear to be a legitimate business, there was no way to reach a human. It seemed odd to me.
I say appear to be a legitimate business, but really it appears that he wanted to appear to be ten or twenty legitimate businesses: Operations summits, CIO summits, executive summits, corporate counsel summits.
It would be interesting to know if he has ever done an honest day's work in his life. Certainly the spammy history suggests otherwise.
There are secret courts in the US. We have both the FISA court, wherein the judges almost always rubber-stamp the government requests to spy on citizens. I believe there were three cases over the years where the secret court did not comply with the government request, I presume the judges had a headache.
Fortunately, by way of headache powder, there is the FISA appeals court. It, too, is secret. It convenes but rarely because the ``trial-level'' FISA court is so compliant, and of course when it does convene it necessarily rules for the only party before it.
By the way, ``FISA'' stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We call it that because the spying is done against US citizens and rarely involves any intelligence. The court was established in 1978 by act of Congress. It permits the government to regulate the governmeent; this works about as well as you would expect.
There are also various military tribunals which operate with varying degrees of secrecy. We are allowed to know of the existence of at least some of them, such as the one in Cuba, though of course the proceedings are veiled in secrecy and the defendants are not uniformly allowed to see the evidence offered against them. The reason for the secrecy in these cases is that the courts and their proceedings would be an embarrasment if well known.
Too bad CafePress didn't feel like publishing this letter
If the offended cafe press vendor were to litigate, probably bringing a dec action, the letter would surely be discoverable. It might wind up in the court file in support of a motion for summary judgment, because it would demonstrate controversy and adverse parties.
Based on the little I have heard about the film industry, this could be a damning condemnation of Mr Woods' suit. The film industry appears from this great distance to be filled with cocaine consumers. If the plaintiff is much involved in that industry, to the point of being deemed an exemplar, he could well be a cocaine consumer.
I am informed that cocaine does not make its consumers smarter or wittier. Neither does it make the consumers more attractive to the appropriate sex except to the extent that a particular member of the appropriate sex may also be seeking cocaine.
All of which leads to an interesting question. If this gets past the anti-SLAPP motion, does Mr Woods get to pee in a cup? Normally I would not expect that to be legitimate discovery, but it appears that his lawyer may have opened the door.
I think lawyers should (perhaps be required to) warn plaintiffs of the potential damages they could face when they absolutely insist on going forward with a frivolous lawsuit
Yes, and I suspect these are fairly common. The Federal rules provide for a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. Florida provides this by statute. Check your state law for corresponding details, perhaps by tracking how the Federal rules flow into your state rules.
The ethics rules generally prohibit lawyers from promoting cases known to be meritless, though an argument for application of or extension of existing law is an exception. That is how law evolves: compare Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883), to Loving v. Virgina, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Or, the classic case, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, to the several ``Dining Car'' cases,or Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483.
In this case, I cannot see any plausible explanation for the atty taking the city's case. There is no claim that present law is incorrect, nor any principle to be extended to a new area. The attorney for the city should, however, be grateful for the $50,000.00.
In a situation like this, I am glad not to represent the city.
What people -now- call an API has been called different things through the ages ("interface", "system subroutine library", "library function", "supervisor call", etc)
There, I think that's probably as good a demonstration of the problem as you'll find anywhere. In one sentence we have managed to conflate non-copyrightable API, copyrightable implementation of API, and some other stuff. Such confusion does wonders for technically uninformed judges in the federal appeals courts.
They may know the law, but it is patent that they do not understand computing.
Simple example trying to get it fairly close to correct, the classic read(2) system call on something that looks similar to a real machine:
int read(int fd, char *buf, int sz); /* here is the API */
/* here is part of a hypothetical implementation */ mov 6(sp), r1 mov 8(sp), r2 mov 10(sp), r3 trap #2 /* the actual stuff takes place in the supervisor call */
I should mention that 3 years of law school normally includes a grand total of zero hours of understanding how to program computers. Some of the more advanced students will get an extra 50% more programming education. When the beaks on the CAFC went through law school, many years ago, they only got about half this much programming experience.
Without some analysis of the covenant, and whether it is an agreement with consideration on both sides or just a paper from the city, it is hard to say how much protection it would offer. It may eliminate the case and controversy, if it releases the plaintiff and everyone in any wise associated with him, now and forever. Otherwise, next week's Newcorp Sign Pictures, LLC, of which he is the president, has the same issue and he still has the same need for a declaration.
This sort of problem evades review and is likely to recur. Courts sometimes address such even when the original controversy is moot.
If the covenant works and is broad enough to eliminate his case and controversy, then we need to wait for Newcorp Free Automatic Sign Image Sublicensing, LLC, to see how this works out.
The laws in Texas may not be the laws we are used to in Florida. Each state has its own law; I think there are a few which modeled their law on Florida.
Such a request for money also happens in Florida, but occasionally the records-seeker is referred to the First Amendment Foundation. There is case law concerning reasonableness of charges in Florida.
Our problem is that, every year, the legislature enacts some tens of new exemptions. They now number over a thousand. My favorite example is a campaign treasurer's report which redacted the address of the campaign treasurer. It was probably perfectly legal under the statute.
Another exemption says you can no longer review records to see if your city manager or other high-level officials live in the city they govern.
The court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with a claim that an action was filed in violation of this section.
From Ch 2015-70, Laws of Florida.
File your anti-SLAPP motion. Lose, perhaps because the judge is reluctant to grant judgment that early in the case. The SLAPPer is now entitled to fees.
Not the first time, and probably not the last, but I have to remind people how close Tallahassee is to Chattahoochee. Or maybe, with work product like this, I do not have to remind people because it is fairly obvious.
While Butts is the obvious target of the criticism, the suit was filed on behalf of the city as a municipal corporation. That means that either the city delegated the power to sue, or the entire commission had to vote for this suit.
I express no view as to which of these options is dumber.
What is the legal definition of obscenity in the US?
The standard definition is given by Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184,197 (US 1964): ``I know it when I see it''. Thus the job of any seller or distributor is to revive the long-deceased in order to show the material to him and see if he deems it unclean.