us.legal

" jls" <jls1016@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:4_NWd.19215$%Y4.1419@bignews6.bellsouth.net... > > "Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message news:x-0603052005340001@192.168.2.4... > > In article <3QMWd.58$jW1.1374@news.uswest.net>, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\

In article <1110137895.369535.226090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, yando.geo@yahoo.com wrote: > Yes, it was *definitely* Florida. > >According to the Unruh decision he is entitled to an independent >blood test so it seems the case doesn't seem

"Larry" <x@y.com> wrote in message news:x-0603052005340001@192.168.2.4... > In article <3QMWd.58$jW1.1374@news.uswest.net>, " \"- Prof. Jonez©\"" <!> wrote: > > >Chas wrote: > >> "Steven O." <null@null.com> wrote > >> > You say, below, that jury n

On 2005-03-06, Greg Buchner <null@invalid.org> wrote: > In article <slrnd2mflg.5m4.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, > Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote: >> The question here is simple: Do web news outlets have the same protections >> a

On 5 Mar 2005, "Pete S" <sou@yahoo.com> wrote: >I received last summer (Aug-04) a letter from my former chiropractor in >Boulder requesting payment of $900.00 for alleged treatments in March 1999. >They are threatening to send us to collections now

<esnesnommoc@urthlynk.c0m> wrote in message news:422b56d4.17874421@news.east.earthlink.net... > On 5 Mar 2005, "Pete S" <sou@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>I received last summer (Aug-04) a letter from my former chiropractor in >>Boulder requesting payment

jeiodw 89rv 2890w y8uis yf89wy 89r yw2q89 yfseiy f89w3 y8irc w389 udqe g8ui qw3yu8 rw yr8sy 8ieyio weio yf8wio yfiowefioweio 9iop 9eiou erop Attorney Stephen R. Pappas, State Bar No.:158560, 550 South California Avenue, Suite 320, Palo Alto,

Larry wrote: > In article <9uom21h1unf0q2dsvl8s7ci2ftkq6pt1oh@4ax.com>, > null@null.com wrote: > > > You say, below, that jury nullification is "illegal". Does that > > mean > > that if I, as a juror, knowingly and willingly vote not guilty, even

Chas wrote: > "Steven O." <null@null.com> wrote > > You say, below, that jury nullification is "illegal". Does that > > mean that if I, as a juror, knowingly and willingly vote not > > guilty, even though I know the facts of the case, as applied to t

In article <slrnd2m6ql.563.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote: > Would it be wrong for, say, the San Jose Mercury-News to publish the same > article? Almost nobody says yes, and it's quite likely that t

Richard wrote: > No they do not. Why not? > The traditinal media has inherited liberties not available to any old > website, blogger or not. Care to cite? > As anyone without any education can set one up. Ergo, a person without a degree in journa

Cindy Murray wrote: > The title on this article is misleading. The issue is not whether or > not internet "news" is protected by First Amendment rights. The issue > is whether or not it was a trade secret violation (and therefor NOT > protected

Richard wrote: > The ruling was to force the bloggers to hand over their source information > as they are not protected by the journalism laws. > If the articles had appeared in conjunction with a newspaper, then maybe > protection would be granted.

On 2005-03-06, Greg Buchner <null@invalid.org> wrote: > This shouldn't be considered a constitutional issue. You shouldn't be > able to hide behind the constitution to cover up a wrong-doing. Would it be wrong for, say, the San Jose Mercury-News to

iowesud89f w390etugy89034wu r890fy 890eyw489eyr90q3 weyg8903u q90r er fiow suy89 12q389efg 8903q f89w 90rfyei90r fweruyf90 qw3eu90fq3ue90u 12390q u90 ujdf iwruy 9012 uq980ef y890q23 yeg89w 9ri0fy 9io weur8wu yerfiod Attorney Stephen R. Pappas

jdf ieun90eujherg89uy 90eu tg8903u 90rf ugv89 uycr890q3 u890tu 34c90cru c8904uy90 jexdiuawy 89e cy289w4 uyr89w3ie yf8923uy q90wr y89wc434 e9034 uytr890u t4 In article <795345a6379a46e48a72af50310bd48f@dizum.com> Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrot

Richard wrote: > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 23:30:32 -0700 Born Again Sam wrote: > >> Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple >> >> Posted on : 2005-03-05| Author : Nigel Wright >> News Category : Technology >> >> > > Your subject is misl

In article <slrnd2mflg.5m4.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote: > The question here is simple: Do web news outlets have the same protections > as more traditional ones? I'd have to say yes, but, the C

In article <d0firq$chq3$1@netnews.upenn.edu>, o-chan <poda@REMOVEmac.com> wrote: > > Publish it? I wouldn't say that's wrong. But it would be wrong to > > protect the identity of someone who broke a confidential agreement to > > give them that

> Publish it? I wouldn't say that's wrong. But it would be wrong to > protect the identity of someone who broke a confidential agreement to > give them that information. Someone broke the law. While Apple has in > the past threatened websites ov

> Your subject is misleading and invariably dead wrong. > The case involves intellectual and private information being posted on a > website. > This does not fall under constitutional protection, but rather the laws of > the country. > No you may not

Cindy Murray wrote: > Born Again Sam wrote: > > > Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple > > > > Posted on : 2005-03-05| Author : Nigel Wright > > News Category : Technology > > > > > > <snipped> > > > Apple's attorney George Riley

Born Again Sam wrote: > Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple > > Posted on : 2005-03-05| Author : Nigel Wright > News Category : Technology > > <snipped> > Apple's attorney George Riley, argued earlier in the trial that jour

Larry wrote: > In article <1110129948.794944.148860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, > yando.geo@yahoo.com wrote: > > > I have a friend who was arrested for DUI > > and demanded a blood test (In Florida). > > This was considered a refusal. > >

In article <slrnd2m6ql.563.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>, Jay Maynard <jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote: > On 2005-03-06, Greg Buchner <null@invalid.org> wrote: > > This shouldn't be considered a constitutional issue. You shouldn't be > > ab

On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 23:30:32 -0700 Born Again Sam wrote: > Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple > > Posted on : 2005-03-05| Author : Nigel Wright > News Category : Technology > > Your subject is misleading and invariably dead wrong

In article <38vmcgF5trquuU1@individual.net>, "Born Again Sam" <eta@carinae.org> wrote: > Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple > > Posted on : 2005-03-05| Author : Nigel Wright > News Category : Technology > > > A tentative ruli

> Meanwhile sources reveal that Apple had scanned computer files, checked its e-mail servers and questioned its 30 or so Apple employees who had access to information about Asteroid This claim is in contention. The AP wire copy reads: "Electronic