True, however, enforcement of said judgment is quite another matter. For instance, if someone tries to sue me in another State over a matter that is not lawful to sue me for in my State, they will have a very hard time attaching anything of value that is not within the adjudicating State's geographic boundaries. If they attempt to attach my wages in my State of citizenry, where their initial proceeding was not lawful to begin with, their petition would be denied.

Even if the other State's court was able to get a petition considered in my State, once it is found to be unlawful to proceed, my State's court would deny the petition.

That may well be the case to the opening story. If this person is a citizen of California, and the contract was initiated in Massachusetts, then his current State of citizenry would have precedence in the matter where Federal Law is silent.

However, if this person is still a citizen of the State of Massachusetts, then Massachusetts would be able to enforce its law upon its own citizen.

Moving to a new State does not automatically transfer citizenry. There are lawful requirements in each State to attain citizen status. Even in criminal matters, any State must obtain permission from the State of citizenry to extradite for prosecution where Federal Law is silent.

It is no different in matters of tort. If a contract is unlawful in the State of citizenry, then it is also unenforceable on that State's citizen, barring any interests the person has in the State of adjudication and Federal Law.

I would have to say that this is the reasoning the State of California is also making with regards to this case. It will be interesting to see how it all ends.

Your reference is in regards to two corporations located in the State of Massachusetts over a citizen of said State. We are citizens of our respective States and bound by the laws of our State of citizenry while within the geographic boundaries of said State. I am not bound by the laws of another State as a citizen of my State for activity I conduct within my own State, unless the laws of my State give such authority to another State or there is Federal Law which affects said activity.

So the question is, is this person a citizen of the State of Massachusetts or not? If not, then the State of Massachusetts may find it hard to enforce their State laws upon another State's citizen for activity within their own State.

"The companies" have already been testing selective cutoff of internet access, and some are even making appearances of "backing off". This "study" is simply telling the truth. "The companies" are going to increase their practices of selective cutoff. This is just propaganda to get the general public to believe it's not "the companies" doing it deliberately.

...who has a problem with statutory damages being awarded when the law requires registration of the "literary work" to have this form of "protection". Copyright is extended automatically upon the creation of any "literary work", but registration with the Office of Copyright is still required to claim statutory damages. To claim such damages in the face of not having an actual registration does not seem kosher to me.

I would believe that the plaintiff would have had to claim actual damages, unless he has proof for the judge that he indeed is entitled to statutory damages. The damages are the judge's responsibility to determine the legality of. The judge is not to simply give the plaintiff everything he/she prays for, even in a judgment of default.

Talk to the hand!

I would have to say then that in accordance with your own personal experience that you have been fortunate enough not to stand accused of libel. However, that still does not change the fact that you are wrong.

From your own citation:

It says neither that the libel must be run through a press nor on paper to be libel in the State of Nebraska. "Publication" results when the alleged libel is simply communicated to a third party. There is no apparent restraints as to the form and origin of the communication.

Yeah! And shame on you, you illiterate clod who can't even read a French article to understand that they debated this issue for over 40 hours, were under the understanding that debate of the issue was over and would be voted on first thing next week, and the fact that the Secretary of State instructed those left at 10:45 AT NIGHT to immediately vote on the issue knowing that the majority has already gone home.

YOU should be ashamed for leaving YOUR work when it's not done yet although you've been in your cubicle for two days straight and it's almost midnight. Shame on you when your own work is not even done!

Montana doesn't have sales tax, you insensitive clod!

For all we know, the plaintiffs are orchestrating this themselves for the exact purpose of planting this kind of bias into the judge. I had the prosecution pull stunts like this in 2004 in a case I was involved with. It is far more likely, in my opinion, that the plaintiffs are doing this themselves BECAUSE they are losing, and to defame any possible associations the defendants may have, or to tie them to criminals or those with criminal activity is the only way they have a chance at prosecution.

And when I decide that I do not like your one size fits all distro, I change it into something more toward my liking to use and, maybe, even distribute it. That's what the "Free" stands for in "Free Software".

The fact that the vouchers have an option to be spent on used vehicles far from addresses the issue that some people still will not be able to afford NEWER cars. The purchase of the vehicle is only part of the total expense of the vehicle. Some States' registration fees are based on a retail value of the vehicle. An "old clunker" that may cost $40/yr. to register and $240/yr. to insure, is quite cost effective for a housewife or elderly who uses it to get around town once in a while to get groceries.

That $25/month is less than what would be paid out for basic land line phone service.

Buying a 2004 or newer model car is going to shoot the registration fee up in such States anywhere from $150-$200 annually. Not to mention the car insurance going up at least 50%. This would practically double the monthly cost of simply OWNING the vehicle. We're not even talking the monthly payments of the purchase itself.

Many of these "old clunkers" are '80s or even '70s models cars and trucks. The voucher would only be good for $1500. That's nothing when you don't have money! And these vouchers are most likely NOT going to be good in private sales. So getting some 2004 model "fuel efficient" vehicle for even $3,000-$4,000 will be absolutely impossible.

Also, what's to stop the dealers from suddenly raising used car prices a few thousand dollars after such legislation goes into effect? Are we to simply trust that they will keep prices sky high for used vehicles and not shoot them astronomically?

Just browsing through the local trade paper on used car dealers shows that a 2004-2006 "fuel efficient" vehicle is running about $10,000 - $20,000. Now really think about it! What kind of person who is barely making it as it is, maybe even on a fixed retirement income, has $8,500 or more to throw into a NEWER car?

Guess what! Most of these people who have these "old clunkers" DON'T have this kind of money. Get a loan? Sure, why not? That $8,500 even with A credit is still gonna cost you $150 a month! So now, you have $50/mo. just to own the car, and another $150/mo. for the next five years for the loan!

Yeah. Real smart! Do you really think that someone with that kind of limited income is suddenly going to be able to afford an extra $200/mo. just to have a more "fuel efficient" vehicle that probably won't save them but maybe $20-$40/mo. at the pump??

This voucher idea is just as bad as bailing out failed corporations and lenders when that kind of money could have gone straight to the mortgagees to pay their mortgages, and to the possibly future laid-off employees for a few years of unemployment.

All of the "stimulus" legislation coming out of Congress these past few years seems to promise salvation to those who are really struggling, while simply hammering the poor over the head instead. Like an intentional Catch 22.

And THAT is why you don't post to /. right after a company party!

You obviously have now idea what you are talking about when it comes to public education in this country. According to appellate judges Crosky, Klein, and Kitching of the Second Appellate District,

(Read the full opinion here

Any fool can plainly take a look at the current affairs of the education system and see that this is absolutely the truth of the matter in public education.

Now, if you actually did get a HS diploma, go sit quietly at home in anticipation of your "superior" digital television like all good sheeple should.

The vast majority of those who claim to be "Christian" have no idea who, or even what, Jesus, the Christ, is. I agree wholeheartedly that blue laws should be abolished as they are explicitly and blatantly unconstitutional. Nobody has a right to force me to worship on a specific day, but God Himself. If I so choose to worship on the Sabbath, instead of Sunday, the first day of the week, then that is between myself and my God. No man has a right to impose a day of rest on me when my God says to work six, and rest the seventh.

A true believer in Christ would realize that He is not a God who forces Himself on you. He commanded His disciples to:

Christ Himself tells His true followers to proclaim His Ways. If they don't listen, warn them that God himself will be their Judge...not make a law and force others to abide. True Christians will proclaim what Christ tells them to, and will in no way FORCE others to abide by their beliefs. That is not our place!

Those who "self-identify" as Christians are exactly that...self-proclaimed, wannabes, charlatans. And they are "BS'ing" for their own personal agendas, which usually include a sense of power and belonging. And they accomplish their agenda by banding together with other like-minded, self-proclaimed enforcers of morality in order to pass laws upon society to force all into their lifestyle.

This kind of behavior is not to exist in a Republic, even in the greatest majority:

And exactly how is it you know for a fact that it is THEIR brain that is miswired and not the rest of ours?