As much as I would like to agree with you, you cannot read the language "to the extent permitted by law" as referring solely to the "treaty law" (sic). If the drafters wanted that limitation, they would have said, "to the extent provided by this Document" or similar. The phrase "to the extent permitted by law" is a nod to the local laws wherever the election is taking place, so that the observers do not interfere with the process. Guess who decides what "interference is": the local legislature.

It does not make sense to say that the only limitations on the observers arise from the Document itself. Can observers hover over local officials? Can they touch and inspect every ballot? These actions are all regulated by local laws. The 100 foot distance is Texas is asinine, but it's the local law.

Most of the general information regarding the location of transmission line infrastructure must be made public in order for the local regulatory authority (e.g. state commissions) to approve or deny projects. Furthermore, the existence of RTO/ISOs push more and more data into the hands of the public in the name of market transparency. Data that otherwise would have been internally confidential in a number of (formerly) vertically integrated entities. I am not arguing that such disclosure is bad, but if the public really cared to know how fragile the grids are to things as simply as a raccoon in the wrong place in a transformer, there would be panic in the streets.

The Supreme Court will decide this issue next term in the context of a student importing legally purchased textbooks in Thailand and reselling them in the US. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/

The clauses go hand in hand. Yes, you maintain ownership because you are not assigning all of your rights to Google when you upload a file. The problem comes with the overly broad grant of a license from you (as owner) to Google (as licensee). The limiting language used by Google is not enough to ensure that you do not intend to give them permission to make your otherwise private material public in ways you hadn't anticipated.

Google does not need to own your IP to do (almost) anything it wants with your material; all they need is a broad enough license.

The Felony Murder Rule applies in the case of the bank robbery example. The concept is very close to "he broke the law and as a result someone is dead." In fact, it extends to almost everyone involved in the felony. For example, the driver-accomplice can be charged with first degree murder, even if he was discovered, arrested, and handcuffed in the back of a police car when one of his other accomplices pulled the trigger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule

The government seeing the email is one thing; using it in court as admissible evidence is another. While other agencies can use other so-called reasons to intercept, analyze, and read email without a warrant, the IRS does not usually claim "state secrets" when prosecuting a tax fraud case.

See the Murphy Bed case for an example on how to lose a trademark based on its generic nature.

From the settlement website: How do I exclude myself from the Settlement Class? If you do not wish to be a Settlement Class Member, you may exclude yourself by writing to the Claims Administrator. You must provide your full name and address, state that you want to opt out of the Settlement, and deliver your request by mail, hand, or overnight delivery service to the P2P Congestion Settlement Claims Administrator, c/o Rust Consulting, P.O. Box 9454, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9454. Your request must be postmarked no later than May 13, 2010. http://p2pcongestionsettlement.com/SettlementNotice.htm

"I am not a lawyer." IANAL. I think I can manage that.