This is why I read legal opinions...

[wbarnhill]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/04/02/0456916.pdf

34“The female we are looking for hopefully wont [sic] mind having a
little sexual incounter [sic] with my boyfriend and I [very sic].”

I love it when they slip things like this in. Keeps it interesting

 

[poadeleted20]

We plumb the depths of the immunity provided by section
230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”).

That alone, on the first page of the decision, is enough to pique my curiosity.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/04/02/0456916.pdf



I love it when they slip things like this in. Keeps it interesting

Tee? Tee hee?

It's the 9th Cir. - what do you expect!

 

[astanley]

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2008/04/02/0456916.pdf



I love it when they slip things like this in. Keeps it interesting

[very sic] is my favorite part

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[wbarnhill]

Tee? Tee hee?

It's the 9th Cir. - what do you expect!

So the others are just dry? How do you expect to draw anyone to the legal profession if it's boring?

 

[JeffDG]

So the others are just dry? How do you expect to draw anyone to the legal profession if it's boring?

It's why all the fun cases get filed out West! Must be careful, not in SZ!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

So the others are just dry? How do you expect to draw anyone to the legal profession if it's boring?

Tee? Tee hee?

You're killin' me here!

 

[Dr. O]

Yeah, well I am still waiting on what the meaning of is, is... And, I did not have sex with that dog, errr woman (sorry, fido)...

Reading the opinion again leads us back to the understanding that lawyers are simply liars for hire - and often paid by the word - and judges are lawyers...
The majority opinion is going through impossible contortions to defend the FHA where it is indefensible...
The minority opinion is about the only sanity in this entire grotesque piece of foolscap where it points out that providing a drop down box for 'sex' or for 'smoker' is development and providing a drop down box for email address/pets/etc. is not development, completely defies the rules of logic... Amazing...

denny-o

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Yeah, well I am still waiting on what the meaning of is, is... And, I did not have sex with that dog, errr woman (sorry, fido)...

Reading the opinion again leads us back to the understanding that lawyers are simply liars for hire - and often paid by the word - and judges are lawyers...
The majority opinion is going through impossible contortions to defend the FHA where it is indefensible...
The minority opinion is about the only sanity in this entire grotesque piece of foolscap where it points out that providing a drop down box for 'sex' or for 'smoker' is development and providing a drop down box for email address/pets/etc. is not development, completely defies the rules of logic... Amazing...

denny-o

I suppose you've actually read the FHA in order to be able to give us your legal conclusion?

 

[Dr. O]

Well yes, but it is only after I stayed at a Motel 8 last night that I understood it...

denny-o

 

[Arnold]

... lawyers are simply liars for hire ...
denny-o

Yeah, I prefer the model where skilled advocates argue on behalf of their clients allowing neutral third parties decide what the facts are and trained independent experts decide what the law is. It would also be nice if there were some system to review and correct mistakes.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

So do we have to read the entire opinion to find that passage. It's interesting, but I have a huge to do list <g>

Best,

Dave

 

[wbarnhill]

So do we have to read the entire opinion to find that passage. It's interesting, but I have a huge to do list <g>

Best,

Dave

Eh, I was reading it because it has to do with the whole service provider immunity provisions of the communications decency act. Handy to know if you run a website with third party content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

 

[Dave Siciliano]

William: I liked your post. Just wondered where the cite you made was in the opinion. The roommate bus. sure looks like fun...hey.

Best,

Dave

 

[wbarnhill]

William: I liked your post. Just wondered where the cite you made was in the opinion. The roommate bus. sure looks like fun...hey.

Best,

Dave

Ohhh, it's a footnote on page 26.

 

[alaskaflyer]

This is why I read legal opinions:

From the Sixth Circuit...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/6th/084280p.pdf

The same logic does not necessarily apply to the seeds in the ashtray as, standing alone and without the corroboration of the smell of marijuana smoke, it is impossible to know how long the seeds had been in the ashtray. Accordingly, the mere presence of marijuana seeds in an ashtray would likely be insufficient to establish probable cause to search the residence due to the uncertainty of how long ago the seeds got there. Even then, however, we take note of the story told in Jim Stafford’s down-home tribute to Cannabis sativa:

All good things gotta come to an end,
And it’s the same with the wildwood weeds.
One day this feller from Washington came by,
And he spied ‘em and turned white as a sheet.
Well, they dug and they burned,
And they burned and they dug,
And they killed all our cute little weeds.
Then they drove away,
We just smiled and waved,
Sittin’ there on that sack of seeds!

JIM STAFFORD,WILDWOOD WEED (MGM 1974).

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Ohhh, it's a footnote on page 26.

Thanks William! I waded through a lot of that and it is a hoot, but a cite is very helpful.
I don't know about you, but I get so much stuff to read from folks, there's just no way I can get through it and do any work!

Best,

Dave

 

[wabower]

Work? Work?

Thanks William! I waded through a lot of that and it is a hoot, but a cite is very helpful.
I don't know about you, but I get so much stuff to read from folks, there's just no way I can get through it and do any work!

Best,

Dave

 

[flyersfan31]

there's just no way I can get through it and do any work!

Suckah!!!!