Of course, given that the prosecutors didn't want an indictment in the first place and given that the prosecutors are the ones in charge of trying to convict the defendants, one wonders what the chances of actually getting a conviction are...
When will Microsoft realize we own the computers, we are ultimately the ones who make decisions about the computers, and they simply can't dictate to us what software is on our computers and how we use it.
Not while they can dictate to us (and they can, except for the exceptionally knowledgable) and make money doing it.
What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.
Except for the fact that he's more intelligent than they are, vastly more experienced and knowledgable, much richer, and twice their size. Except those things, he doesn't have any power over them.
So, precisely how again do they suggest sites verify ages?
Standard politician answer: "That's your problem, not mine."
,,,the future we want.
You really need to get out more. There's a lot more people out there than your friends, and they don't dress the way you do. I wear a buttoned shirt every weekday, and so does everybody I work with.
No, the people of Tibet know they're part of the PRC. It's just that a lot of 'em don't want to be.
You've never seen shirts with buttons? You need to get out more.
The people who live in Taipei don't think they're part of the PRC. I kinda figure it's their decision.
You can't necessarily argue that just because the state paid for something, it needs to become public property. But I will agree that unless there is a good reason why not, it should. While the annotations are not strictly necessary for an understanding of the law (you can look up the relevant case law the annotations depend upon), I think it would be a good thing in this case to make them freely available.
No they don't. The annotations are summeries of case law. The courts will cite that case law, not the annotations.
Unless I misread the summary, or it is wrong, Carl Malamud is not being sued for publishing Georgia laws, as it states you can do that freely. He's being sued for publishing annotations on Georgia laws that he copied from elsewhere.
"He was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Gerhard Gesell on July 5, 1989, to a three-year suspended prison term, two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. North performed some of his community service within Potomac Gardens, a public housing project in Southeast Washington, D.C."
"However, on July 20, 1990, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), North's convictions were vacated, after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony."
Nope. There are exactly six qualifications you must meet to be elected President: a) You must be a native born citizen of the US b) you must be at least 35 years old c) you must have been a resident of the US for at least fourteen years d) you can't have engaged in rebellion against the government of the US e) you can't have been impeached by Congress and f) You can't have already served two terms as President.
Oliver North was ultimately acquitted of all charges. That's adequate?