Sorry, but that quote doesn't seem right.

First off, that van is explicitly designed for this purpose. So it's assumed it has the necessary medical equipment to perform the organ harvesting. In TFA, it explictly states that one of the reasons for the vans is so they don't *have* to have specialized medical facilities in the prisons.

Second, all the drugs used have regular medical uses, and have hopefully been subject to reasonable testing. I'd be really surprised if the doctor(s) who planned for these vans would have failed to consider possible organ damage from the drugs.

Finally, the prevalence of HIV and Hepatitis is quite true in US prisons, but not necessarily in other countries.

Because they are not concerned with copyright infringement. A public performance of a song is *not* copyright infringement.

Under copyright law, you do not have to negotiate an agreement for royalties in order to use a work in a "public performance". Instead, the law specifies a "statutory royalty" that is due whenever a work is used in a public performance, with the rate of this royalty being set by the government (the Copyright Royalty Board). You may, if you wish, try to negotiate with them for a contractual royalty rate different from the statutory rate, but unless you have done so, you are obligated to pay the statutory rates.

ASCAP and BMI are just agents responsible for collecting the portion of those statutory royalties owed to the songwriters/publishers of songs used in public performances. They aren't suing because you infringed copyright (you didn't) - they are suing because in using the work in a public performance you've incurred statutory royalties, which they are (in theory) authorized to collect and fairly distribute it.

(The portion of the statutory royalties due to the artists/labels is collected by an organization called Sound Exchange).

In summary - to sue over copyright infringement, you need to be the holder of the rights to the work in question. But to sue over the statutory royalties for a public performance, you only need to be the agent authorized to collect those royalties.

Which they tried again in the 1970's by spraying marijuana fields in Mexico with paraquat. Which failed miserably since paraquat sprayed pot isn't really all that poisonous.

The simple fact is that if shenanigans like this are required to convince people the stuff is dangerous, then it's not dangerous enough to justify federal regulation.

Well, given the poor language's upbringing, it's not really all that surprising. After all, it was the bastard offspring of Anglo-Saxon and Norman French (which has a rather sordid history all its own, involving Latin, Gallic, Goth, Vandal, Frankish and Norse).

It's the paperwork. The marriage ceremony is, well, ceremonial. Without a government issued marriage license, the government generally does not recognize that the marriage exists (which means that for the purpose of taxes, social security, etc, the two people are still single).

(there are "common law marriages", which are still legally valid in some states in the US, that require no marriage license, but these are becoming rarer and rarer - only 9 states still allow them).

Only if the law in question gives a strong indication (if not explicitly detailing) that it is intended to be applied to US citizens in other nations. For instance, traveling to another country to have sex with a minor *is* punishable in the US, even if the act is legal in the country where it happens. But in that case, the PROTECT Act of 2003 explicitly makes it illegal to do so - before that Act was passed, there was no legal basis for prosecuting individuals who did this. So it's possible for a US citizen to be prosecuted here for what was a non-crime in the country where the act was committed, but this is *not* the default for all laws.

There is no "Schedule A" for drugs. I'm assuming you mean "Schedule I" under the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates commerce (production, distribution, etc) of various substances. It does not in any way make it illegal to use them. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't even have to authority to outlaw use of drugs (except on federal land) as the only part of the Constitution they can use for drug regulation is the Commerce Clause.

I'd say the same about your posts, but they're missing the small pieces of useful information as well.

Now for the real question - what the hell have *you* been smoking?

If you commit a crime, you can only be tried and punished for it in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. If you, a private citizen of the US, go to the Netherlands, commit a murder there, then return to the US, you can NOT be tried for that crime in the US. At most, you can be arrested by US authorities, and sent to the Netherlands to stand trial (whether or not this is the case depends on what extradition treaties, if any, exist between the US and the Netherlands).

(note that the rules are somewhat different if you are an active duty serviceman - the military has automatic jurisdiction over all criminal acts of active duty personnel, regardless of where those acts occurred)

Now if you were in the Netherlands, and you hired a hit man to kill someone in the US, you could potentially be tried and convicted in a US court - under the "accessory before the fact" and "conspiracy" concepts, you are as guilty as the actual killer, even if you were on another continent when the crime was committed.

*That* is the basic theory underlying the trials of those captured in Afghanistan - they were involved in the planning of attacks against US targets, and as such the US should have jurisdiction over them.

And finally - smoking pot isn't illegal *anywhere* in the US. The laws all revolve around cultivation, possession, sale, etc. The only criminal penalties for using are the "driving under the influence" laws if you get caught driving while stoned.

Let's see - a country with the world's 2nd largest population and 11th largest economy. Gee, events there couldn't possibly have any effect on the rest of the world, now could they?

Er, what crimes? Or are you assuming that since Assange has been accused of something, all of the people involved in Wikileaks must be co-conspirators?

Well, they *obviously* found someone named "Nachiketa Kapur", whose response was "There was no cash to point out to". Note that it wasn't "I don't work for Mr Sharma", or "I have no connection to that political party", or anything else that might indicate that he was *not* in fact Mr Sharma's aide.

What we'll probably discover is that Mr. Kapur is officially employed by someone other than Mr Sharma, in some position that on paper has nothing to do with politics. But Kapur's response indicates that he is involved in that party, and has some association with Sharma.

Because governments routinely lie, while Wikileaks has yet to be caught in *any* sort of fabrication? Your theory of them building their reputation via real information so they can then fabricate some false info suffers from one major problem - what does Wikileaks get from risking that hard earned reputation? Is causing a scandal in India really worth risking the whole Wikileaks project?

You clearly don't understand how "Common Law" system works. There are two types of precedent - binding and persuasive.

If 100 cases with identical circumstances are filed, then the first one resolved provides persuasive precedent - other cases can refer to it to try and persuade the judge in their case that the ruling in the first case is the proper ruling for their case as well. But judges can and do disagree, so there's no guarantee that just because one judge rules one way, another judge won't rule the other.

Once a matter has been reviewed and ruled upon by an appellate court, it becomes binding precedent, but only for those courts beneath that particular appellate court. In other jurisdiction it remains persuasive precedent (though appellate decisions do tend to carry more weight than lower court decisions).

A case can slowly work its way up the ladder, until eventually it reaches the Supreme Court. Once the SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, it becomes binding precedent for all courts in the US.

Also, precedent requires the cases to be identical - a court may make a different ruling, if they can be convinced that the specific issues in the precedent are sufficiently different that the ruling in that precedent should not apply.

And when the MAFIAA types file their John Doe suits against hundreds or thousands, they're just seeking the information required to file proper lawsuits against the copyright infringers. Yeah, right...

Sony is using the excuse of proving that California is the proper venue to engage in a fishing expedition, in the hopes of netting more people to subject to harassment-by-litigation. Sure, they'd love to keep the Geohot case in California where they have their animatronic simulation of a judge working in their favor, but that's hardly the entire reason for seeking the Paypal info.

You don't read enough history.

You mean the argument that Edison *lost* - he was the big proponent of DC, while Tesla and Westinghouse were behind AC.

.htraE ylno eht si sihT .tuoba gniklat er`uoy tahw wonk t'nod I .uoy rof taht dexiF

Don't bet on that - the USPTO does grant reexaminations, but regularly changes or invalidates patents based on reexaminations.

In the case of 3rd party requests for reexamination such as this, if the reexam is granted, there's a very good chance the patent will either be invalidated, or some of the claims will be removed or changed (about 71% according to this (somewhat old) report).