That depends entirely on the whether the law is fundamentally flawed or not.

When anti-miscegenation laws were on the books there were no set of circumstances that would lead non-racists to convict because the law was morally bankrupt. The same applies to most sodomy laws which remain on the books in many states and countries. You can even see this in a recent marijuana possession case where they were unable to find 12 members of the jury pool who were willing to apply the proscribed penalties for the 1/16th of an ounce the man was in possession of. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

When the law has fallen out of touch with society or the penalties are grossly inappropriate to the crime it is not improper to conclude that you would find it impossible to convict.

Obviously in more complicated cases deciding in advance that you would or would not convict is improper and harmful to society. Though many states also refuse to seat jurors who are morally opposed to capital punishment in murder trials that could carry that penalty even when they will consider the evidence and render a fair judgement.

Jury nullification is nearly impossible these days due to the way jury selection is performed. Anyone who truthfully answers that they are unwilling to apply the proscribed penalities in a particular case will not be seated for the trial which removes the vast majority of potential 'nullifiers'.

Your argument is analogous to telling women that 'if you didn't want to get raped, you shouldn't have dressed so sexy'.

Just like women have the right to dress sexy and not raped, men have the right to spend time around women alone and have consensual sex without being falsely accused of rape. We shouldn't have to regress to Talibanic inter-sex relations where men and women are not allowed to associate with non-family members of the opposite gender to avoid being accused of sexual impropriety, though typically it is the woman who is punished (regardless of fault or validity) for this sort of behaviour.

I follow divorce and divorce related legal decisions fairly closely as a function of my job and have never come across any legal charges filed, let alone sustained against this sort of person. Typically the best outcome that comes from this is that the the family court judge decides that it is indicative of poor judgment and decision making that comprimises their ability to provide responsible childcare and assigns custody to the other parent. Unfortunately even when the accusation is proven to be false it is difficult to prove that it is malicious and judges don't want to end up in the paper years later for having forced the children to go with a molestor and will instead order shared custody as an ass-covering technique.

Credibility isn't a commodity that one can compare in simple numerical values. By your logic a woman accuses two men of raping her but they both deny it, thus she is a liar and they committed no crime.

In this particular case the credibility of the two women is particularly suspect because neither of them came forward with any allegations of wrongdoing at the time and continued to socialise with him. It was only after the two women(who are reportedly friends prior to this incident) got together and discovered that he had been sleeping with both of them and agreed to go to the police together. While he may have raped them or comitted a sexual crime the fact they didn't feel what had occured merited police attention individually makes it seem like it could be a case of collaboration to revise history because they are angry at him.

The cables are themselves governmental dealings and if US diplomats are telling their superiors that foreign heads of state are having an affair or are taking psychiatric drugs it is a relevant political fact. If there were diplomatic cables discussing Tiger Woods' sexual misadventures then it would be worthwhile for Wikileaks to divulge as it informs on what our government is thinking and engaged in.

He stayed in the country for the police to interview but they refused. Then after a cursory meeting they told him he could leave the country which he did. The next day a prosecutor in a different part of the country reinstated and increased the charges. While in the UK he offered to meet with the police through teleconferencing, meeting at their embassy, or by telephone but was refused and they insisted on his returning to the country (at his own expense) to be questioned. Additionally while refusing to inform Assange's lawyer of what charges were being investigated (in violation of international law) they were selectively leaking information to the press (which is highly ironic, but also wrong).

While he may have commited a crime of a sexual nature, the prosecutor has been acting in bad faith from the beginning and unwilling to make reasonable accomodations.

While it isn't surprising, it is important to keep noting the ongoing invasion of privacy that occurs online. Analytics is pretty upfront about the fact that it is going to be collecting data while Facebook Connect is not and adding it to a site is likely to be a choice made by less savvy marketing types rather than the technically inclined who would automatically assume anything that can track will be tracking.

It is also worthwhile from the fact that it covers how it tracks non-facebook users and how if they ever did get facebook (or log onto it) that it is capable of associating the entire history with all the other data now available.

That isn't going to help you. If you had read TFA you would know that this is about the Facebook Connect 'Like' buttons that have been showing up on many of the popular websites and how it tracks you behaviour even if you aren't signed up with Facebook. Essentially Facebook has become another cross-site marketing tracker which given their abysmal outlook on privacy shouldn't be a surprise but is still worth noting because of their prevalence.

Actually he did better than that being an (apparently) unemployed lawyer. He put in a claim that he was included in this lawsuit for the purposes of harassment (a solid claim given the email trail) and as such if it were dismissed he would be entitled to sanctions against the litigant. He also claims that he is in the process of establishing a legal practice so while he is not entitled to lawyers fees (because he is representing himself pro se) his firm would be denied his services (as the only lawyer) and harmed so he should be entitled to reasonable travel expenses and an attourney's rate of billing for the time involved if forced to travel to represent himself. Given that his firm is in the process of being established he can set whatever he wants (as long as it passes the sniff test) for his hourly rate since there are no clients to complain that it would be to high yet and then 'adjust' it down afterwards.

Are you serious? You can sue anyone for anything no matter how rediculous it is in the US. If your claim isn't seriously flawed (by flawed I mean using the wrong legal term not completely nonsensical) then the defendant must file a response or you win by default. Once the response is filed the majority of rediculous lawsuits are summarily dismissed.

Not really. In this case the litigant doesn't actually have to respond to those motions because they are directed to the court rather than opposing council. One might be able to make an argument that it is 'multiplying the proceedings in any case unreasonably' (28 USC 1927) by forcing the judge to consider those arguments but given that it is both standard procedure for lawyers to file those motions even when they aren't expected to succeed and takes at most 30 seconds of time to consider, it would be an extremely difficult claim to have hold up.

What they really object to is the (often) successful motion that the court has no 'personal jurisdiction' over the defendant and instead of being able to file as a single case against 5000 Does paying a single filing fee, proceeding in a friendly court, and arguing against unrepresented individuals they will be forced to file their lawsuit in the appropriate venue, paying for each individual, and having to contend with opposing council. That is what makes their scam less profitable but they can't actually come out and claim that because it would expose the fact that they are abusing the system and the goal is not 'reasonable accomadation' but achieving a settlement with the minimum cost possible regardless of the defendants actual guilt.

Absolutely correct. This is standard operating procedure for lawyers to file for dismisal and a protective order even when they don't expect it to succeed, simply because it preserves routes for appeal and there is the possibility the opposing lawyer will screw up and it will get through. That said, one of the three claims his forms make which is that the district overseeing the legal action does not have personal jurisdiction is valid for most potential purchasers and should have the suit dismissed and forced to be refilled in the appropriate venue (which typically isn't as friendly to this sort of business as the venues chosen by the litigants).

Go to your local airport and start taking pictures of planes and see how long it takes for your camera to be confiscated and you are arrested or threatened with arrest. Or any number of local completely legal things to photograph like government buildings, rail yards, police officers arresting someone, or a metro station.

You will rapidly discover that the US has defacto criminalized public photography under the guise of 'protecting us from the terrorists'.

Not really if it is anything like my university was they don't offer tuition refunds after the course drop date (which was 28 days after the course began).

If they were looking at lost funds for future semesters they could usually replace most of those with temporarily lowered requirements or incentives for transfers. Most universities have vastly more applicants than they do spots for students.