The shares sold were bought on margin. The broker performed a margin call with zero notice and sold the shares. They can do this since you borrowed to buy the shares (even if you didn't exceed your cash balance, you still buy things on margin in a margin account until thr T-2 settlement occurs). You need to specify your account as cash only to avoid this.

I'm sorry, but this is flat wrong when it comes to American law. The US Supreme Court, not you, decide what is and what isn't constitutional. If SCOTUS says so, it is so. See Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803. If you have a problem with the judiciary being the co-equal branch that interprets and is the final arbiter of the Constitution, you have a problem of over 200 years of precedent and Article III, Section II of the Constitution.

The American legal system is a common law system. It is defined precisely to allow judges to interpret and define the scope of statutes and the constitution when deciding a true controversy between (at least) two parties with standing. If you want the legislature to "define" everything, then go to a civil law jurisdiction like Germany. (And there's nothing wrong with civil law or the Germans, it's just different.)

The language in the case couldn't be more clear that it was not "crucial plot elements" that the case was about, but pure copying:

This is not over in terms of the industry as a whole. A jury decision does not create precedent. Instead, the decision is merely that this specific use, by these specific parties, *with this specific jury*, constitutes fair use. A different jury in a different case may and will find differently. Google was the biggest target, but it's not the only target.

This is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Instead, this is an issue regarding the All Writs Act, which states in its entirety:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
Four conditions must be met before a court can order a third-party to do something under the All Writs Act:

• The absence of alternative remedies—the act is only applicable when other judicial tools are not available.
• An independent basis for jurisdiction—the act authorizes writs in aid of jurisdiction, but does not in itself create any federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Necessary or appropriate in aid of jurisdiction—the writ must be necessary or appropriate to the particular case.
• Usages and principles of law—the statute requires courts to issue writs "agreeable to the usages and principles of law."

Apple is challenging all but the second of those requirements, and is also arguing that its First Amendment rights against compelled speech is infringed. There is enough analysis elsewhere on Apple's argument that I won't repeat it.

Why isn't this a Fourth Amendment issue? Being compelled to perform an action, whether it be in the case of a locksmith opening a safe or a telephone company installing pen registers, is not a Fourth Amendment issue. Additionally, a warrant or consent overcomes the protection against searches and seizures. There is no doubt that a judge would issue a warrant to search the phone. Most importantly, the actual owner is the county, not the terrorist, and the county provided consent to search the phone.

Please read the briefs. They are entertaining reads. We need to focus on where our outrage should be targeted, and in this circumstance, it's not the government's abuse of the Fourth Amendment.

Power generation is already distributed across the country and regions in a diverse portfolio mix of technologies most appropriate for the geography. Sure, they're large generators, but it's presently the most cost-effective, safe, and reliable method of generating *and* transmitting energy. The problem is that we have three, huge interconnected grids in the United States in order to move that generated energy at the moment it's generated in precise equilibrium with demand. Failures in transmission, as this Crimea story says, result in cascading failures based on safety. The distributed generation you're speaking of, primarily solar (and I'll throw wind in there too), is intermittent and unreliable, and therefore requires *more* transmission capability in order to move energy from where the sun is shining or the wind is blowing at any given moment to where demand resides. Until energy storage becomes cost effective (and we're nowhere near that), transmission and distribution is the primary problem.

As such, the dependency on the grid is the problem, not renewable distributed generation. The solution is microgrids with small scale nuclear plants that *can* operate independently of the grid when necessary, but that opens up a whole other level of concerns, almost all based on NIMBY fears.

He has to do this in order to allow the document into evidence. Once it is authenticated and otherwise admissible, he can rely on it for any decision he will make. If he decided to go rogue and not follow the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the government could easily prevail on any appeal. In other words, the judge isn't being difficult to be difficult; he is doing it because he does not want to be overturned.

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