I work at a university and Hotmail has on a number of occasions blocked all mail from our domain as an overreaction to some compromised accounts sending mail to hotmail users. These blocks have lasted for days while we have to ask them to revert this. They've been completely unwilling to whitelist our domain or even incorporate a more expedient process for getting these blocks resolved. We have never had any similar problems with Google, Yahoo, etc..
Their metrics for "best" are flawed if they block tens of thousands of good accounts and emails on account of a few compromised accounts, which every institution with over 20,000 users will have. I'm sure their users appreciate not getting normal mail from some domains for days instead of a slightly larger spam folder.
Sometihng else to consider is that AT&T has no obligation to sell you the second contract, nor can you be certain they don't do some sort of blacklisting of people who cancel their contracts. Seems like a lot of hassle and risk for saving $85.
As long as the partner isn't too vengeful and doesn't delete your iTunes library, you'll be fine.
Men had balls of steel in the 60s.
One of the Supreme Court's greatest purposes is to review legislation for constitutionality. Judicial review is a key part of the balance of powers within the U.S.
I'm not saying it's likely given how long this has been a concept within American patent law, but just because it's a clearly written statute does nothing to protect or endanger the concept.
The current law on the books doesn't make the act illegal. The law makes it illegal for financial institutions to transfer money to/from internet gambling sites.
Strictly speaking, this is fully within Congress' rights to regulate interstate commerce which is explicitly granted by the Constitution.
Your assertion about it never being the government's business about what you do with your money, doesn't pass a common sense test. Two obvious examples, drug money, and unlicensed gun sales.
Social outrage works a bit better when you have a decent thing to stand on.
Acting in your client's best interests may indeed mean protesting a continuance, but most general norms of decency would see it a little differently.
If the reason for her lawyer's withdrawal is her inability to pay, then she is not likely to find alternative counsel even with a continuance. In that case, protesting the continuance, is a no-win situation for the RIAA, and only generates further bad press. No average person can reasonably be assumed capable of defending themselves without a lawyer, so again, no additional threat even if she has more time to prepare.
Your question is about what's the problem with what the RIAA is doing, my question is rather, what's the harm to them in letting her look for another lawyer given the most likely reason for the current one withdrawing?
Link to Original Source