[ucodegen]

[quote=patb][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

So, when your parole officer shakes you down and finds the gun, then you do t ime.

Parolees are subject to random search and have no rights as they are under court supervision.[/quote]
Correct, but they can’t be charged with having an unlicensed weapon. They can be charged as a felon in possession though.
The statement that a parolee has no rights is not correct, they have some, but severely limited.

[ucodegen]

[quote=patb][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

So, when your parole officer shakes you down and finds the gun, then you do t ime.

Parolees are subject to random search and have no rights as they are under court supervision.[/quote]
Correct, but they can’t be charged with having an unlicensed weapon. They can be charged as a felon in possession though.
The statement that a parolee has no rights is not correct, they have some, but severely limited.

[ucodegen]

[quote=patb][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

So, when your parole officer shakes you down and finds the gun, then you do t ime.

Parolees are subject to random search and have no rights as they are under court supervision.[/quote]
Correct, but they can’t be charged with having an unlicensed weapon. They can be charged as a felon in possession though.
The statement that a parolee has no rights is not correct, they have some, but severely limited.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Downtowner]But somehow we are all safer because of this? Give me a break.[/quote]
Safer because of what?.. please be more explicit as to what you are referring to.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Downtowner]But somehow we are all safer because of this? Give me a break.[/quote]
Safer because of what?.. please be more explicit as to what you are referring to.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Downtowner]But somehow we are all safer because of this? Give me a break.[/quote]
Safer because of what?.. please be more explicit as to what you are referring to.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Downtowner]But somehow we are all safer because of this? Give me a break.[/quote]
Safer because of what?.. please be more explicit as to what you are referring to.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Downtowner]But somehow we are all safer because of this? Give me a break.[/quote]
Safer because of what?.. please be more explicit as to what you are referring to.

[ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.

[ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.

[ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.

[ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.

[ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

Of the statements so far:

That frenchlambda had signed an agreement w/ ex & ex-inlaws handing over the Trust Deed in return for a promisory agreement(effectively reimbursement of his portion of premarital assets) – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That the ex-inlaws are threatening foreclosure – may or may not be fact, if it is.. there is a trace through docs which will make frenchlambda immune to libel. He is the one who made the statement.

That the MSA negated the “stipulation and order” document – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That what was done was on the edge of legal and that the ex-wife’s attorney was wily? – I don’t think the ex-wife’s attorney would object to being considered wily. If you needed an attorney, you would probably want one with that skill set on your side. As for the ex-husbands attorney being out maneuvered by the ex-wife’s attorney, it is basically a statement of fact shown by the progression of the “stipulation and order” followed by the MSA, AND we are not using names here – so it is not identifiable to a specific individual

Personally, I don’t see anything that would lead to libel here. Libel against whom too?

Remember:

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Highlighted may intentionally. If you have signed documents, it is fairly clear cut. The best rule is to keep it real.

There are actual blog sites that deal with IP, patent and legal issues. see Groklaw. These sites are up and running, and address legal issues that some individual would like to sweep under the rug, and yet they survive.

[Author]

Posts