|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 316 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 216 of 316:
| 
Jul 2 17:26 UTC 1999 |
The idea is that if this becomes law, grex could refuse to comply and
invite prosecution. This way, if the government comes after Grex and
tries to shut it down, Grex can challenge in court the interpretation of
the law that they think makes it apply to grex. Grex can then file
suit, get a restraining order and continue to operate pending the trial.
Im sure the ACLU would be willing to represent Grex if it decided to
make its own separate challenge to the law.
|
richard
|
|
response 217 of 316:
|
Jul 2 18:16 UTC 1999 |
but grex cant put itself ina positionto be able to sue if the issue
isnt forced by initial refusal to comply.
grex would have to let the government make the attempt to shut it down
and then fight it.
|
scg
|
|
response 218 of 316:
|
Jul 2 19:03 UTC 1999 |
Grex is in a position to attempt to sue. You can sue saying that you have
a right to do something and that the law would prevent you from doing so.
That's how we're able to sue right now.
|
richard
|
|
response 219 of 316:
|
Jul 2 19:21 UTC 1999 |
The current lawsuit is over the law itself-- a second lawsuit would be
over the specifics of the law as it is interpreted to apply to grex. That
lawsuit wouldnt be saying or arguing that the law is unconstutitonal as
this one is, but simply that it doesnt specifically apply to grex
(grex being text only being a logical argument).
|
mdw
|
|
response 220 of 316:
|
Jul 3 02:28 UTC 1999 |
You can't sue over "a law". You can only sue over "the specifics of a
law as it applies to you". This is because of a concept called
"standing" which lawyers are really keen on - it basically means you
have to have a specific interest in the matter to participate in a case.
That's also why the ACLU can't just sue over these things on its own.
|
dpc
|
|
response 221 of 316:
|
Jul 6 14:21 UTC 1999 |
Re #214 - "we are jep". 8-)
|
lilmo
|
|
response 222 of 316:
|
Jul 8 20:48 UTC 1999 |
Re resp:202 - Hear, hear!!
Re resp:208 - is there a twit filter for the conferences?
|
dpc
|
|
response 223 of 316:
|
Jul 9 20:08 UTC 1999 |
Mary and I got e-mail from Mike Steinberg this morning saying
that there will be hearings on our motion for a preliminary
injunction on Thursday and Friday, July 22 and 22 in Judge
Tarnow's courtroom. The ACLU is planning to call 2 lay witnesses
and 2 expert witnesses.
The brief in support of our motion for a preliminary
injunction is at http://www.aclumich.org/briefs/internet76.htm.
The file is over 100K!
|
jdeigert
|
|
response 224 of 316:
|
Jul 15 04:43 UTC 1999 |
g
?
|
dpc
|
|
response 225 of 316:
|
Jul 15 14:08 UTC 1999 |
Oop! That should be July 22 and *23* obviously.
I've heard nothing further from Steinberg. Has anyone else?
I'm a bit concerned that with only a week to go until the hearing
we don't know if they want to call anyone from Grex as a witness.
|
mary
|
|
response 226 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:10 UTC 1999 |
I haven't heard more.
|
aruba
|
|
response 227 of 316:
|
Jul 15 18:50 UTC 1999 |
Neither have I.
|
jep
|
|
response 228 of 316:
|
Jul 15 20:47 UTC 1999 |
re #223: That link crashes Netscape Communicator for me.
It doesn't appear the ACLU wants to call anyone from Grex, or from
Arbornet, either. I assume they've gotten what they wanted from both
organizations: names to legitimize their lawsuit. We have nothing
further of value to offer, and so now they're done with us. No one here
should be surprised.
|
mary
|
|
response 229 of 316:
|
Jul 15 23:39 UTC 1999 |
Take a deep breath, Jep.
Now take another. ;-)
|
jep
|
|
response 230 of 316:
|
Jul 16 01:33 UTC 1999 |
<Guess she must not agree with my viewpoint of the ACLU.>
|
janc
|
|
response 231 of 316:
|
Jul 16 03:13 UTC 1999 |
I've heard more. I'll be a witness for Grex on Thursday morning.
|
robh
|
|
response 232 of 316:
|
Jul 16 04:35 UTC 1999 |
You'll be going door to door with little pamphlets, telling people
how accepting Grex into your heart has changed your life?
|
aruba
|
|
response 233 of 316:
|
Jul 16 16:10 UTC 1999 |
Re #228: John, you make it sound so dirty. ;)
Re #231: Great! Could I ride in with you and sit in the courtroom and watch?
|
dpc
|
|
response 234 of 316:
|
Jul 16 18:09 UTC 1999 |
Congrats, janc! Remember - before you answer a question, think about
the question. Then *just* answer the question and *stop*.
|
janc
|
|
response 235 of 316:
|
Jul 17 13:16 UTC 1999 |
Re 233: Sure. I'm assuming it is open to the public. I'm not sure how
much of the hearing I'll be hanging around for. I'll be talking to the
lawyers more Monday, I think. I'll probably be the second person
testifying, after their internet expert.
|
scg
|
|
response 236 of 316:
|
Jul 17 21:24 UTC 1999 |
I'm somewhat interested in going as well, although I should drive separately
if I do that since I wouldn't be coming back to Ann Arbor right away
afterward.
|
other
|
|
response 237 of 316:
|
Jul 19 00:16 UTC 1999 |
will you be allowed to record your testimony so that you can provide
interested parties with a transcript or copy?
|
keesan
|
|
response 238 of 316:
|
Jul 19 00:54 UTC 1999 |
I would like to congratulate jdeigert on making his very first response in
the bbs, after a year of having it read aloud to him. g ?
He is considering changing his login to vi for village idiot. The response
was an accident, he says. He was just experimenting.
|
davel
|
|
response 239 of 316:
|
Jul 19 13:03 UTC 1999 |
Heh. In this environment "vi" means something entirely different, Sindi.
|
keesan
|
|
response 240 of 316:
|
Jul 19 13:53 UTC 1999 |
I know that. At one point Jim wanted to be DRDOS (doctor dos). What exactly
is vi an acronym for? Visual something or other?
|