Sadly, no.

Because checks are the only money transfer method which the banks are legally mandated to provide free at the point of use. (Or so I understand.)

Why has the government not got off its backside and mandated free use of BACS? Or why has competiton not forced the bank's collective hand?
Well, those are different questions.

well, crimes is something different. If it's supposed to be a penalty, rather than restitution, he should be prosecuted with a criminal standard of proof required.

That is absolutely their job. That is why we have juries. If it as just about the interaction of the law with the evidence it would be a lot more efficient and effective to hold bench trials.
Juries may be getting mis-instructed, but that they're listening is an indication of the vast array of ignorance amongst the general public as to what juries are for.

China does what is best for China. Getting into a hot war with the US will result in both the US, and the countries aligned with the US, ceasing to buy everything that China is selling. Collapsing China's enconomy is not what's best for China. Therefore China will not directly interfere with a war in North Korea unless, as in the first round, it looks like China herself is actually going to be invaded.

If China waited until it looked like MacArthur wasn't going to stop before rolling over the border the first time, when China had nothing to lose; what makes you think China would attack at the start of any war in the Korean penisular now, when China has everything to lose?

If the US were to bear the brunt of an advance about as far as Pyonyang, and then let the fresh South Koreans pass through them to finish the attack off (and South Korea alone is no threat to China), the Chinese might not like it, but they wouldn't let themselves be drawn into war over it. North Korea may be a useful buffer, but there's no way China can fight a war to maintain North Korea as a buffer.

then they can dispute the facts, but since the initial "throw everything you can and see what sticks" letter from the agent's lawyer only opposes the bloggers characterisation, and not her statement of 'facts', we can only presume that they aren't in dispute.

"Big Brother" Series 1, episode 4 IIRC. The most amusing thing about that is when the interviewer refers to the costs of the system as £25m, as if this was some extravagant amount of money to spent on a government IT project. (What are we on now? £10b with no result for the NHS system alone?)

And his ISPs logs showing a packet or packets correlating to this:

aren't about as effective proof as stapling a 'send complete' receipt from a fax machine to any old document you want to claim that you sent?

then that REALLY sucks.
I go up to the MFP, swipe my card to log in, select the scanning function, choose my scan settings (if the defaults aren't suitable), use the screen keyboard to type in a name I can find easily in future, select the network drive & folder I want it to go to (that's a one-touch preset) and press the big button to make it go. Once I get back to my desk, I open the relevant shared drive and do as I please with my document. In terms of faxing, having assured myself that it has scanned as I want it to, I have only to print it to a fax driver with the relevant number and off it goes. (In principle, but I don't think I've ever actually faxed a scan).

Friends and families who ought to know what they do in their day job. Social blackballing is about the only effective method (short of summary execution) of deterring someone from doing something which is morally reprehensible but legal. If UK landlords can bar traffic wardens from drinking in their pubs, then people who feel they've been mis-treated by TSA agents can publicise who they are & what they did.

If you would find it awkward for your friends & family to know what you actually do at work, you should be asking yourself if you ought to be doing that job. If you won't then perhaps you need a little prompting from the glare of publicity.

In conclusion, surely TSA agents have nothing to hide in true accounts of how they go about doing their jobs.

GREEK ALERT!

It looks like they implied consent to federal jursidiction by getting it moved to federal court, but then immediately and directly put up the 'no jurisdiction' argument and walked away. Now, I'm fairly certain I remember seeing the plantiff saying under oath that the jurisdiction argument was invalid because they did have a presence in Illinois and the judge buying it.

But you're right, I'd forgotten the move-to-federal-jurisdiction bit, which does muddy the waters.

Still, the court should have established that it had jurisdiction before even allowing the case to proceed to the stage of serving the papers on Spamhaus, and done that without paying much regard to any opinion the plantiff may have proffered on the question.

if they ever do want to have a presence in the US, the most this assclown can pop up and demand from them in $3+interest. Best to tidy it up now, than have it as a roadblock in the future.

yes and no. If the court doesn't have jurisdiction, the judge is supposed to toss the case, not rule on it anyway inspite of the fact that his ruling will be unenforceable. In this case, the judge took the word of the plaintiff (who obviously has a massive vested interest in getting a default judgement) that the court had jurisdiction, and proceeded with the case.

She was told that it wasn't working, and it wasn't. I wouldn't hazard even that much on a non-functioning computer which may only turn out to have scrap value.
I've also seen people give away machines which they think are broken beyond repair (and so only have scrap, or cannibalisation value) which actually only have one broken component, and replace them with new ones.

I conclusion I can quite see someone thinking their machine is broken, buying a new one (or having a new one bought for them), and trying to flog the old one for $60. The only thing I don't really see is someone actually paying that for a broken laptop on the off-chance they could get it working. But not thinking "that's awfully cheap for someone to be selling a broken laptop, it's probably stolen".