Maybe the GT deal was a big ruse - a relatively cheap way to bargain a better deal for Gorilla Glass.

Maybe they should make a movie about this.

One of the purposes of a criminal justice system is to keep folks from rioting and vigilantism.

"It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

This is an important lesson for American youth ... but don't take my word for it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Avoid any police service that deviates substantially from Peelian principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles):

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

It does seem to be a bit of a conflict of interest, doesn't it?

These are probably relevant, but may not be the ticket.

Standing is a question of *who can sue* (it is rather literal - you have a right to stand up at Court and be heard).

As you note, the charter gives a purpose, a *why*, deviation from which may give rise to liability. But the question is who can enforce. Does the Charter exist to protect the students? Faculty? The institution itself? Its property? Who is harmed by deviation from the Charter?

A relevant phrase might be "that may conduce to the education of the English and Indian youth of this country, in knowledge and godliness" as the *who* benefitting (and hence may have standing) is "English and Indian youth", antiquated racism though that may be. But who knows what a Judge would think or other status may be alive in this case.

The naming of the corporation gives no indication of standing to sue either. It just mentions jurisdiction and by this order, presuming you have standing, the name one would provide the Court to sue and enforce an Order against the corporation as a defendant.

That said, rule #1 of litigating is: You never know what a judge will say.

Litigation is, pretty much, learning a thousand ways why a stranger can, contrary to your expectations, agree or disagree with you.

The question of standing is non-trivial, and can include questions of contract, equity and wrongful interference (tort). Not having thought it out, but purely an example: these kids may argue their reputation tied to the university, and the university using fossil fuels could harm their future prospects. It sounds like a stretch, but then again I know folks that refuse candidates from MIT because of how that institution treated Aaron Schwartz. It's not an argument without basis.

But don't take my word for it. Let's see what happens.

These kids are pushing ahead with a noble cause against a tough institutional defendant with risky litigation for the betterment of the world. I think it's interesting and probably a worthwhile expenditure of their time. They could be on slashdot.

FWIW, here's what I might suggest:

1. Make every video accessible by the public in-person at the police station and at a set of accredited institutions (i.e. public interest groups);
2. ban re-publication of the videos without a court order;
3. water-mark any video available outside the police station so that whoever copied it can be traced and their authority to receive copies revoked.

This would seem to prevent the problem of republication for commercial purposes, but still allow people who are involved in incidents or interested in police oversight to access and review the videos.

Well... damnit! Maybe it's that George Carlin adage about arguing with idiots. :o)

The US has a 90:1 gun:citizen ratio.

The US has one of the highest murder rates in the world (3.6/yr/100000 people), being over 6x higher than Canadas (0.5/yr/100000 people).

I trust we can all do ourselves a favour and conclude that the balance of your post, and likely anything else you bother to write, is also laughably misinformed.

Do us all a favour and stop posting nonsense.

The use of peers is to avoid situations like the Star Chamber and the Inquisition.

The risk was not pushed onto GTAT so much as their creditors. Let's hope the investment community was as good at assessing the risk of GTAT as they were for subprime mortgages/Countrywide Financial, or Greece/Iceland/Argentina/etc, or Black Scholes/Long-Term Capital Management, or Lehman Brothers, or , or ... oh wait.

You probably mean the Broadcasting Act, which establishes its subject-matter jurisdiction as follows:

One of the many cases that now clarify this topic include Easthaven, Ltd. v. Nutrisystem.com Inc., 2001 CanLII 27992 (ON SC), http://canlii.ca/t/1vz4l retrieved on 2014-09-19, which states at para. 29 (where the 'person' is referring a company whose presence was based on Internet activity in Canada):

Jurisdiction can also arise for specific subject matter, as in the case here involving Netflix and the CRTC, by certain statute or treaty (viz. the NAFTA provisions for cultural accommodations for media). Of course a Court in Canada could just assume jurisdiction and give a paper judgment - the question then becomes whether an American court would recognize the judgment through the process called comity. With extremely rare exceptions between Canada and the USA, the Courts will recognize the judgments reciprocally.

There is also nothing stopping the CRTC from bringing an action in the USA based on violations that occurred in Canada. The applicable law may be different from the law of the jurisdiction that addresses the allegations of wrongdoing (i.e. it may be Canadian law that applies, but heard by an American Court, or vice versa). In any case an operation being abroad is not a defence from wrongdoing - notwithstanding e.g. extraterritorial immunity arising from a treaty.

Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.

A bit late to reply, sorry, but just a note: In almost all jurisdictions a Judge has no power to vary the stay on enforcement of an order between the time of issuance of that order and the expiry of the time to appeal. This is a fundamental principle of justice.

The power to govern the appeal process rests exclusively with an appellate Court itself (notwithstanding some extremely unusual jurisdictional crossovers, or collateral attack, neither of which being the case here).

The Judge may have lifted *some* freeze on a court order, but they almost certainly did not vary the stay of enforcement pending a possible appeal.