PDA

View Full Version : The Uniform System of Legal Citation



lala
06-12-2011, 08:17 PM
The Uniform System of Legal Citation

Subject: The Uniform System of Legal Citation

Author: YOU WISH MOTHERTRUCKERS!
Posted date: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:07:52 PM EDT
Last modified date: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:07:52 PM EDT

by:lala:bigsmile:

I may be out of the way here, but to comment on something I knew absolutely nothing about would be defeating the purpose, which is to learn what I am referring to. I can Google, copy/paste and twist words to make it seem like they are mine, but I am a bit anal-retentive about this process.

In order to understand why it is important for there to be a uniform system of legal citation, it is necessary to research the history of copyright. To have a copyright is to have the right to copy, distribute, and modify as the author or creators see fit to original work.

The differences between rights in a copyright at ‘common’ law and in federal statutory law had yet to be more clearly defined when the Wheaton case emerged in 1834.

In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) 591, 668 (1834), Wheaton’s case came into being out of the printing of the Supreme Court's own opinions. Wheaton was the first copyright decision by the Supreme Court, and focused on whether Supreme Court decisions could be copyrighted.

Wheaton had been the official reporter of decisions and had compiled twelve volumes of Supreme Court decisions, which he had claimed he had copyrighted (in regards to public notice, which came into question by the defense for Peters Jr.).

Richard Peters Jr., published and sold a book called Condensed Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States some years later. Peters Jr.’s book contained all the reports of cases in the first volume of Wheaton's Reports. Wheaton asserted that Peters Jr.’s book infringed on his copyright of that material contained in Wheaton’s first volume. Wheaton then sought to ban the sale of Peter’s work, thus creating Wheaton v. Peters. The Supreme Court decided to deny Wheaton’s argument. A mass of litigation followed Wheaton v. Peters.

In essence, there can be no monopoly of copyright on public information. 'Common' law is public information. It can also be said that parts of legal arguments can be persuaded as a copyright.

It is important for there to be a uniform system of legal citation in that it makes it easier for anyone to locate the sources used in legal documents. It also is extremely efficient, and lists the rules for formatting and court citation.

Also note that in the Wheaton case, it was about copyright infringement. But my question is: Should it have been about trademark infringement?





Sources

See Craig Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1291, 1358 (1985).

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/799/799.F2d.1219.85-5399.html

http://www.thirdamendment.com/citation.html

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-constitution-english-common-law-or-the-law-of-nations/

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


WHAT SAY YOU?:bigsmile:

Jhoffa_X
06-12-2011, 10:05 PM
The uniform system of legal citation..


http://biblicone.com/wp-content/uploads/new_walmart_uniforms.jpg


Is pretty fucking gay.

lala
06-13-2011, 12:09 PM
Whoa! That's great, Lala. Nice one.

Showcases stimulus-response application, order and relevance of precedent. I'm studying Law myself, and that looks flawless to me.

Top marks, that girl! A+ :thumb:WELL, i wager she will give a B. cuz she IS ANAL herself! perfectionist, attorney, and she is on the board that writes the questions for the certification test to become a certified para.
when the grade posts, i will let ya know who wins. lol


The uniform system of legal citation..


http://biblicone.com/wp-content/uploads/new_walmart_uniforms.jpg


Is pretty fucking gay.

lol. wtf was he thinkin to pose for THAT?

lala
06-13-2011, 02:11 PM
you don't HAVE TO, lums.

Kleinbok
06-13-2011, 06:32 PM
http://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpghttp://i919.photobucket.com/albums/ad35/simonjameswolfhenry/Artwork/SketchofGoat.jpg..
GOATS.

GOATS AND JEWS.

EVERYTHING DEPENDS FROM GOATS AND JEWS.

lala
06-14-2011, 12:16 PM
What's that have to do with anything?what doesn't it have to do with?


Hey, a B's respectable, if that's what she gives you. I'm quietly confident you'll exceed that, however.

Good luck.ty!

now here's the second assmnt. damn briefs aren't easy. first one. lets wager this one, too. since i havent a blessed clue as to how to do them without her example (oh geez). and the format of word doesn't NOT coincide with dlp's format, but you get the gist. and mind you, she only asked for the ONE ISSUE (there were several):



STATE v. Brown, 85 N.C.App. 583, 355 S.E.2d 225

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Charges were brought against Defendant in U.S. District Court, where the Defendant was found guilty on all charges. Brown appealed.

FACTS:

- On October 23, 1985, three chainsaws were stolen from Jack Kenon. Both chainsaws were “Sachdomar” chainsaws, with one having an ‘A’ scratched on it to identify the particular employee who was assigned to the chainsaw.

- Three days later, Darren Kenon and Luther Brown had stopped at a convenience store in Alamance County where the defendant along with two others was parked. The defendant was approached by Kenon and Brown, and asked if he was selling chainsaws. After the defendant initially said he was not, the defendant recognized Brown and stated ‘[h]e’s all right’, and opened the trunk of the car where Kenon and Brown were shown two chainsaws.

-Both Kenon and Brown described the chainsaws as large, red and black “Sachdomar” chainsaws, with one having the “A” scratched on it.

- Kenon testified he had both chainsaws on numerous occasions while performing work for Jack Kenon, and positively identified them as the chainsaws which were stolen three days earlier.

- The defendant offered to sell the two chainsaws for $125.00.

- Brown moved for a dismissal arguing that the evidence was insufficient to show that the saws were stolen or that he knew or had reasonable grounds to know they were stolen.


ISSUE: What facts would lead a reasonable person to believe that the goods in his possession were feloniously taken?

RULE: The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that the trial court did not err in denying the contention for motion to dismiss.

ANALYSIS: Brown’s argument is that he cannot be charged since the evidence was insufficient to show that the saws were stolen or that he knew or had reasonable grounds to know they were stolen.
There must be a presumption and burden of proof, along with weight and sufficiency in the evidence.

The evidence statute applies in cases showing defendant knew and reasonable grounds to believe that property was feloniously stolen. The defendant unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did possess the personal property described. All of the elements of the statutes of receiving stolen goods have been met.

The elements of felonious possession of stolen property are (1) possession of personal property, (2) having a value of over $400.00, (3) which has been stolen, (4) the possessor knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the property was stolen, and (5) the possessor acting with a dishonest purpose. State v. Davis, 302 N.C. 370, 275 S.E.2d 491 (1981); G.S. 14-71.1.

In State v. Davis, illegal possession is a continuing offense beginning at receipt and continuing until divestment. In other words, the illegal possession begins when the stolen property is stolen or received and ends at the sale of the stolen property when it exchanges hands. Note that possession of stolen property is by nature a continuing offense.

The defendant’s actions satisfied all of the elements of G.S. § 14-71.1.



CONCLUSION: NO ERROR.

lala
06-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Clutching at straws, I'd guess the guy's only hope was to argue he had no intent to permanently deprive ownership (laughable, I know, since he was attempting to sell them). That aside, it's pretty much a done deal. No shortage of judicial precedent to draw upon here.

right.

In the sense that cases are unique, uniformity is assumption only. Though labouring beneath the sheer weight of parallel, assumption will suffice, in the absence of extremity. That said, your objective is to evidence comprehension of hitherto resolved cases, rather than to question the foundation of process. And so, you need only highlight where case details run concurrent with the defined approach.

nicely worded!

As for the defendant claiming insufficient evidence, the rule of 'reasonable doubt' applies. Not only could the chainsaws be identified specifically, but he was attempting to perform transaction for pecuniary reward, and were it the case that he had no knowledge of theft, it may nevertheless be assumed that his own possession was illegal, since he neither identifies his own vendor, nor produces proof of receipt of said transaction in advance, beyond possession alone.

right.

If I were writing this brief, I might add 'Who's this nimrod kidding? This fucking idiot hasn't a leg to stand on'.

I honestly don't see how you could improve on this, Lala. You've basically covered it in full. It might strengthen the defendant's claim were no arrest forthcoming prior to litigation. That could be argued as doubt, but only in the most ambiguous sense.

ah, but i cannot access the case online to add to any claim for the defendant. this case was given by link, accessible on through the instructor's permission. (westlaw) ty, sir!

hypnotictortoise
06-27-2011, 08:40 AM
Off topic: Fuck addressing the same point of negligence phrased in five subtly different ways.

Sorry, I had to get it out somewhere, it's driving me crazy.

DLLS
06-27-2011, 10:26 AM
Little known fact. The Supreme Court in the literature they send to pro se (Latin for "you're toast") petitioners admits that their failure to hear a case does not mean the decision below is correct, just that it does not involve a matter of national importance or affecting the rights of others.

The Supremes only agree to hear approximately 1% of the cases they receive each year. Hell wouldn't want the little prima donas to actually work.

Another interesting fact. Only Stevens (I believe it was Stevens) personally reviews petitions for writs of Certiorari up for vote to decide whether the court will hear the underlying matter. The rest rely on what their clerks advise them concerning the case. I guess the lazy bastards also want to avoid the possibility of getting paper cuts.

lala
06-27-2011, 10:35 AM
I knew the fact you posted of the SC cases.

The other statement, about clerks reviewing writs really pisses me off. It isn't their job to decide what goes before the justices. In other words, clerks are deciding what goes before the court. What kind of shit is that?

Kleinbok
06-27-2011, 11:10 AM
http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpg http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpg http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpg http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpghttp://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpg http://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpghttp://www.ynetnews.com/PicServer2/02022009/2190387/4_a.jpg
(http://youtu.be/sO1OtmnxDcs)http://youtu.be/WI6prraK8_E (http://youtu.be/WI6prraK8_E)


SOUNDS LIKE A NEST OF LIBERAL GATE KEEPERS....

lala
06-27-2011, 11:31 AM
they are invading just like the mexicans....

Mike Mazzone
06-27-2011, 11:33 AM
SOUNDS LIKE A NEST OF LIBERAL GATE KEEPERS....
It is buzzing around there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDSf3Kshq1M

lala
06-29-2011, 11:22 AM
This last go round, the instructor requested a 'like-brief'.
I dunno wtf that is, so I winged it. Applied her rules to the like-brief, and....MIND YOU, she will not grant me access to Westlaw because I haven't taken her other class (God forbid), which helps in locating cites and statutes. I had to research this myself. Some I could not find, most I did not have access to. So, I used what I could with what I had and was given.
The research took nearly 3 and a half hours. The edit of the paper itself took 400 minutes (so the properties say). This is an interesting case in that there were 10 policies (!), and none wanted to pay. The case was fought bitterly. It just goes to show the lengths insurance companies will go to not to payout policies. I cannot even access the final outcome, but here is my like-brief, per instructors request.


WA-LA:

Dunes Club, Inc. v. Cherokee 259 N.C. 294, 130 S.E.2D 625

2) ISSUES:

- Can error be found in permitting a witness, in a trial of action, to testify as to his opinion or conclusion, and is it then cured, by the witnesses’ testimony to same fact being admitted at another point without objection?
- Should testimony of a non-expert witness, in a trial of action, to experiences and appearances as opinion evidence, be admissible?
- Would testimony from a witness, in a trial of action, be considered prejudicial if the testimony in question was of no benefit to either the plaintiff or defendant?
- Should non-expert witness testimony, in a trial of action, be excluded and considered insufficient evidence if there is a question of the witnesses privately owned devices accuracy?
- Should eye witness non-expert testimony, in a trial of action, by a witness to prior experience(s) under like or similar circumstances, as opinion evidence, be considered admissible and competent?
- In ruling on motion for involuntary judgment of nonsuit, should the court accept plaintiff's evidence as true, consider it in light most favorable to plaintiff, give to it the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom and consider so much of defendant's evidence as is favorable to plaintiff?
- Should evidence not properly authenticated or without showing, or introduced as evidence be admissible?




3) Identify the laws of evidence that the appellants argue were violated by the trial court.

[1] [2] Appellants argue and assign as error that Ball was permitted over their objections to testify in substance of what he saw. However, the witness before Ball, Edward Dixon, testified without objection to the same or similar effect. The defense argued there should be an exception, even if it were testimony to the same or similar effect. In Shelton v. R. R. Co., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232, it is referring to the examination of the same witness, not two different witnesses, and therefore should not be admissible.
[3] [4] Appellants argue and assign as error evidence classified as ‘opinion evidence’ from non-expert witnesses should be inadmissible and found to be without merit. In Wood v. Michigan Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 245 N.C. 383, 96 S.E.2d 28, stated “The exception and assignment of error to the question and answer… is without merit”.
[5] Appellants argue and assign as error in that the witness’ non-expert testimony was beneficial to the plaintiff and prejudicial to the defense. Rule 403 of The North Carolina Rules of Evidence states the exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay.
[6] [7] Appellants argue and assign as error in that non-expert witness testimony should be excluded and considered insufficient evidence if there is a question of the witnesses privately owned devices accuracy. Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof, 3rd Ed., ch. XXI, sec. 220, p. 450.
[8] Appellants argue and assign as error in that the Court allowed opinion evidence to be considered admissible and competent. The North Carolina Rules of Evidence Rule 601(b) provides that a person is disqualified to testify as a witness when the court determines that he is incapable of expressing himself concerning the matter as to be understood, either directly or through interpretation by one who can understand him, or (2) incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.
[9] [10] Appellants argue and assign as error in that the Court did not grant the motion for a judgment of nonsuit in each case. The Appellants contentions were that the plaintiff cannot prove its case.
[11] Appellants argue and assign as error in that the Court allowed evidence not properly introduced into evidence or authenticated to be introduced. Pursuant to Rule 901(a) of The North Carolina Rules of Evidence Requirement of authentication or identification, the requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

4) One sentence explanation on what the Supreme Court decided with each issue and why.

On issue [1] and [2], the court overruled the objections, citing Shelton v. R. R. Co., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232, which states ‘It is thoroughly established in this state that, if incompetent evidence is admitted over objection, but the same evidence has theretofore or thereafter been given in other parts of the examination without objection, the benefit of the exception is ordinarily lost.’
On issue [3] and [4], the court overruled the assignments of error, where testimony of witness is as to appearances and experiences of witness which cannot adequately and clearly be reproduced and described in detail to jury, this opinion evidence is admissible even from non-expert witnesses.
On issue [5], the court overruled the assignments of error, stating his testimony in the record was not prejudicial, and any error of admission of such testimony was harmless.
On issue [6] and [7], the court ruled the testimony should have excluded because of insufficient evidence to prove the device is question was accurate, properly made, and properly functioned.
On issue [8], the court ruled the testimony of witnesses as to what they had seen and compared to, in other like or similar experiences, were admissible and competent.
On issue [9] and [10], the court ruled no error in the denial of nonsuit, even when the evidence in a case is in sharp conflict, and considering so much of the defendants’ evidence as is favorable to plaintiff.
On issue [11], the court ruled that for errors in the admission of evidence, defendants are entitled to a new trial.

5) What the court decided to do with the entire case.

The court decided on a new trial.

PTA
07-06-2011, 12:41 PM
How's that cold case? Please.

lala
07-06-2011, 03:09 PM
How's that cold case? Please.

oh what happened to ignore, LIAR!? go suck of crappydick, you pathetic retard. since you like the taste of shit so well.

beg some more. we like it here when you beg.

lala
07-07-2011, 06:01 PM
yeah, i am sure all the fucking geniuses on dlp can do legal briefs before they were even born, they are so speshill. thanks for linking back to this, ac!

lala
07-08-2011, 03:14 PM
First class:

First brief:80 on the Brown Second brief: 95 on the Schraffenberger! Dunes Club and Memorandum of Law is not graded yet.

Second Class:

90. "I think that your reasoning is sound about executing both documents. I suggest that when you cut and past these documents that you delete the headers as well as any limitations that don't apply" (+Two previous graded assignments of 100).


gloating.

Uber Patriot
07-08-2011, 03:25 PM
I think lala is breaking copyright law here J-Ho :nono:


YOU ARE FUCKING DISGUSTING! RE-FUCKING-PORTED! GODDAM FILTH.

REPORTED!!! AND RE-FUCKUN-PORTED!!!!!!! :D

lala
07-08-2011, 05:45 PM
schraffenberger is all my work, you dolt. as is anything i post here. you didn't even see the brief of schraf. so stfu.

lala
07-08-2011, 05:47 PM
the reconstruction of the nc appellate brief isn't easy, either. it is the final assignment.

i finally got my folder back from last semester. civil litigation. 92 for that.

gloating still....

lala
07-09-2011, 10:19 AM
She is NOT a very good instructor. She just says read and write. The chapters contain so much information crammed into 50 pages with lawyer-speak that no one in a civilized world would understand unless you read and reread it dozens of times, she gives no examples and says 'Guess', and throws a multitude of assignments at us.
The only thing interesting in this class is in reading the cases, and finding within them phrases and terms you have never heard of.
'...yet underlying the whole of the warp and woof of the questions woven from...'; 'Therefore, the case was dead on arrival, and the attempts to resuscitate it by substituting parties...A corpse is a corpse, and no amount of cosmetics will cause it to be resurrected'.

lala
07-10-2011, 02:37 AM
Yeah, that last one you posted was pretty tough going. I barely made sense of much of it. :lol: I imagine that, in throwing these curve balls at you, she's attempting to inculcate some pro-active capacity. A certain creative dexterity.

Jesus, by the time you're able to fly through such material with ease, your skull will expand like a melon to accommodate the new grey matter! :lol1:but will it show? do i need to wear a HAT?

lala
07-10-2011, 03:17 PM
that sounds like it is made in england.

lala
10-18-2011, 01:03 PM
1. Michaels v. Albertson, 540 U.S. 344 (2007).
2. Fabini Bros. v. Lowell Co., 301 F.3d 101 (2008).
3. Fabini Bros. v. Lowell Co., 301 F.3d 101 (2008), cert. denied, U.S. (2009).
4. United States v. Murray, 201 F. Supp. 2d 403, 414-417 (E.D. Mich. 2006).
5. Eerie Ass’n. v. New Morgan Landfill Ltd., 722 N.W.2d 890 (2001).
6. LaFluer v. Whitman, 710 N.W.2d 788 (2000).
*7. Ogden Inc. v. Bayview Inc., 102 Nev. 301 (2004) assume parallel citations
parallel citations (in this case, citing to both the official reporter and an unofficial regional reporter) be used when citing cases from any court in that state's system.
Cite to P., P.2d, or P.3d for Pacific Reporter or simply Nev.
*8. Anderson v. Berry, 340 N.E.2d 17 (1999). Assume parallel citations
9. 15 U.S.C. § 78.
10. 11 U.S.C. A. 104-107.
11. R.I. Gen. Laws § 14-2-109.
12. N.Y. Pub. Bldgs. Law § 14202.
13. Fed R. Civ. P. 54.
14. Restatement (Second) of Agency § 104.
15. 7 John T. Haley, Motor Vehicle Safety, § 404 (4d ed. 2008).
16. 7 John T. Haley, Motor Vehicle Safety, §§ 403, 415 (4d ed. 2008).
17. Donna A. Burch & David D. Hancock, Securities Regulation, 48 N. Ky. L. Rev. 109 (2004).
18. Black’s Law Dictionary 909 (9th ed. 2009).
19. SEC v. Kaplan, 540 U.S. 118, 125 (2006) (5-4 decision).
20. SEC v. Kaplan, 540 U.S. 118, 125 (2006) (5-4 decision) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
21.
“Sovereign immunity bars suits against the United States absent an explicit and unequivocal waiver.“ Department of the Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261-263 (1999); Operation Rescue National v. United States, 95 F. Supp. 92, 108-109 (D. Mass. 1997); Lyon v. Cary Management Investments Co., 533 F.2d 649, 652 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
22. See United States v. Murray, 201 F. Supp. 2d at 430.

I AM STUCK ON 7 AND 8.

lala
10-18-2011, 01:05 PM
yes, i have the cases in italics. my papers lose their form on dlp.

lala
10-18-2011, 09:55 PM
she MAKES me. she is ANAL. but, she teaches what they teach first year law skooooooooooooo
Shit. You're really getting into this stuff eh?

lala
10-19-2011, 08:36 AM
That's cool. I find that the basics always wear on my patience. I truly despise the fact that we have to start from the beginning. By definition, we could start from nowhere else, and yet it irks me so.

Fuck it. I'll just wait for Zach to show up, and give him shit instead.

the basics apply, and for that i am grateful. i should breeze thru the first year.
irks me, too. lol
yeah, he needs some shit.:bigsmile:

PTA
10-19-2011, 12:24 PM
The Uniform System of Legal Citation

Subject: The Uniform System of Legal Citation

Author: YOU WISH MOTHERTRUCKERS!
Posted date: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:07:52 PM EDT
Last modified date: Sunday, June 12, 2011 8:07:52 PM EDT

by:lala:bigsmile:

I may be out of the way here, but to comment on something I knew absolutely nothing about would be defeating the purpose, which is to learn what I am referring to. I can Google, copy/paste and twist words to make it seem like they are mine, but I am a bit anal-retentive about this process.

In order to understand why it is important for there to be a uniform system of legal citation, it is necessary to research the history of copyright. To have a copyright is to have the right to copy, distribute, and modify as the author or creators see fit to original work.

The differences between rights in a copyright at ‘common’ law and in federal statutory law had yet to be more clearly defined when the Wheaton case emerged in 1834.

In Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. (33 U.S.) 591, 668 (1834), Wheaton’s case came into being out of the printing of the Supreme Court's own opinions. Wheaton was the first copyright decision by the Supreme Court, and focused on whether Supreme Court decisions could be copyrighted.

Wheaton had been the official reporter of decisions and had compiled twelve volumes of Supreme Court decisions, which he had claimed he had copyrighted (in regards to public notice, which came into question by the defense for Peters Jr.).

Richard Peters Jr., published and sold a book called Condensed Reports of Cases in the Supreme Court of the United States some years later. Peters Jr.’s book contained all the reports of cases in the first volume of Wheaton's Reports. Wheaton asserted that Peters Jr.’s book infringed on his copyright of that material contained in Wheaton’s first volume. Wheaton then sought to ban the sale of Peter’s work, thus creating Wheaton v. Peters. The Supreme Court decided to deny Wheaton’s argument. A mass of litigation followed Wheaton v. Peters.

In essence, there can be no monopoly of copyright on public information. 'Common' law is public information. It can also be said that parts of legal arguments can be persuaded as a copyright.

It is important for there to be a uniform system of legal citation in that it makes it easier for anyone to locate the sources used in legal documents. It also is extremely efficient, and lists the rules for formatting and court citation.

Also note that in the Wheaton case, it was about copyright infringement. But my question is: Should it have been about trademark infringement?





Sources

See Craig Joyce, The Rise of the Supreme Court Reporter: An Institutional Perspective on Marshall Court Ascendancy, 83 MICH. L. REV. 1291, 1358 (1985).

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/799/799.F2d.1219.85-5399.html

http://www.thirdamendment.com/citation.html

http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/the-constitution-english-common-law-or-the-law-of-nations/

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


WHAT SAY YOU?:bigsmile:


I say you're a damn redneck white trailer trash fool.


http://downloadpolitics.com/showthread.php?11652-This-Evening&highlight=evening


went well, until around 8:30 pm.
I invited some kids to watch fireworks in the yard. Nothing big. Just a few kids. And along came 1 mother. She is kin to the children. Lord knows not to ME. THEY are just annexed, forbidden, and uninvited anyways. HOWEVER, she says she has to 'use the bathroom'. While she leaves her child outside, a good 20 minutes, I figure something is up and send her daughter in to get her. Then, I send in MY daughter. All is good until I get home. I get a message. 'DO NOT BRING HER BACK OVER HERE. SHE HAS STOLEN MY JEWELERY AND PERFUME. PLEASE DO NOT BRING HER BACK OVER'. Oh, ohfuckingkay. By then the bitch had rifled through my jewelery and got my wedding ring, my band, my necklace and earrings. FUCKIN GREAT!
OOOOOOOOOOOOOK. So, I call the law. Like I am fuckin scared. They come, they go. No proof, my loss. HOWEVER, since we (me and my 11 yr old) BOTH saw her rifling thru my dresser drawers for some 'shorts' means....A WARRANT WILL BE ISSUED NO LATER THAN WEDS OR THURS. Yes, we may have to testify. Hell, all we may get is restitution, IF THAT. NO MATTER. SHE NEEDS TO GO TO PRISON.

OH WHY IS THAT? MAYBE because the dumb bitch took a shotgun to a grocery store IN HER UNDERWEAR and TRIED TO ROB IT where they all FUCKING KNOW WHO SHE IS! DUH! While she blames it on 'bathsalts' and 'alcohol'. FUCK YOU!

WHAT this bitch doesn't UNDERSTAND is that this is MY LIFE'S WORK. IS SHE THAT FUCKIN STUPID?

NOT ONLY THAT, SHE KNOWS I CAN AND WILL BEAT HER GOODAM FACE IN AND SO WILL MY ELDEST. jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezuz criminy cricket!

I CAN INVITE HER IN, and then...oh for fuck's sake....criminals cant be this fucking stupid.

NOW, I HAVE TO TAKE MY SAFE AND MY JEWELERY WITH ME WHEN I LEAVE MY HOUSE!

okokok...safe deposit box then? WTF? i mean, this DUMBASS totally put aside the gold dollars, the diamond heart, the tennis bracelet, the 1000 dollar watch...? IF YOURE GOING TO STEAL, STEAL LIKE A FUCKING PRO!

small town, small world, small MIND......she is RUINT!

lala
10-19-2011, 02:00 PM
I say you're a damn redneck white trailer trash fool.


http://downloadpolitics.com/showthread.php?11652-This-Evening&highlight=evening

and you went thru posts for a damn redneck white trailer trash fool, ob?

PTA
10-19-2011, 07:43 PM
I say you're a damn redneck white trailer trash fool.


http://downloadpolitics.com/showthread.php?11652-This-Evening&highlight=evening


Does she make you feel inferior? Only, I've noticed that you can't resist these unprovoked attacks, and they appear to center around her education above anything else.

Are you afraid she'll actually achieve what she says she will? That she'd have a big old mountain of shit to rub your nose in, if she does? After all the mockery, you'll certainly be choking on some considerable amount of humble pie.

No to all your questions. "This Evening", "Feet", "98.6%" speak for themselves about lala.

It will be classic when a future employer gets a hold of "This Evening".

PTA
10-20-2011, 06:38 PM
I shouldn't think that anonymous internet threads are what employers generally base their recruitment criteria on. Plus, there's nothing to say who wrote it. I don't imagine her name irl life is Lala.

She's as smart and as capable as anyone here. Like I said, some of you guys are gonna have an awful lot of shit to eat, when she gets her qualifications.


:lol1:

Now that is funny.

"This Evening" "The Feet". Damn, I miss A.C. :lol1:

lala
10-21-2011, 01:16 AM
ob, LUSTFUL? yeah, maybe over internet posts. since she gets no dick whatsoever. po underdicked bitch. :huh:

and btw, i made my last grades higher this week back to high b's. kabooshk! may make the vp list after all. never know. :bigsmile:

it always helps when ya go to class and tell it like it is. i tire of the games. i SPOKE UP when no one else would. i mean, WTF? JUST WT-F? grrrrrrrrrrr

lala
10-21-2011, 02:19 PM
did. done. i have a free weekend now. worked hard, but ya know....i like my damn weekends. :bigsmile: you have a good weekend, wrath. i go out of town and enjoy 4 other walls.
Geddem, La! :thumb:

lala
10-31-2011, 03:23 PM
i dropped them 4 walls becuz he was just....not understanding wtf i said and twisted it and....well, i am done with him. he's a good catch, has a lot to offer but....there shouldnt be any buts if its going to ever work, right?








thats what i thought.


:bigsmile:
and here's my latest assignment:

1. Access the THOMAS website. Locate H.R. 3756 introduced in the 110th Congress.
a. What is the general subject of this legislation?

(a) H.R. 3756 . A bill to designate certain lands in the State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
(b) 203. [110th] H.R.3756 : Colorado Wilderness Act of 2007
Sponsor: Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] (introduced 10/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Natural Resources
Latest Major Action: 10/10/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

b. Select “Bill Summary and Status” and then “All Congressional Actions” What action occurred on October 10, 2007?

I clicked “Bill Summary and Status”, but could not find “All Congressional Actions” ON THAT PAGE. So, then I entered ‘all’ in the ENTER SEARCH field and it gave me (b) above. Which then gave me the option of “All Congressional Actions”.
10/10/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.

2. Access the THOMAS website. Select “Presidential Nominations.” Locate nominations for the 109th Congress and review the confirmed nominations for the civilians for the State of Washington. Who was the subject of the Presidential Nomination 30-110?

TRIED. DO IN CLASS.

3. Access the website USA.gov. Select “Government Agencies” and locate information on the Government Accountability Office. When was the GOA founded?
Click Search for Government Accountability Office. Click “About GAO.” Click “GAO at a glance.” Click “History.”
ANSWER: GAO got its start in 1921. http://www.gao.gov/about/history/

4. Access the website http://www.washlaw.edu. Select “Colorado” and then “Colorado Code of Regulations.” What is the topic of Colorado Code of Regulations 1503-1?
Then click Browse the CCR by Rule Number, and it will post CCR Name and Department Number. Click 1503 for Dept. of Corrections.
ANSWER: 8 CCR 1503-1 PAROLE

5. Access Cornell’s Legal Information Institute.
a. Select “Wex Legal dictionary/encyclopedia.” Generally, what is the Dead Man’s Statute?

In the law of evidence, a rule that prevents a person making a claim against an estate from testifying about statements, actions, or promises made by the deceased person.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dead_mans_statute

b. Access Federal Rules, specifically, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Generally, how many written interrogatories may one party serve on another?

Click Search for Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Click civil procedure. Click Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Under V. DEPOSITIONS AND DISCOVERY is 33. Interrogatories to Parties. Click it. Rule 33. Interrogatories to Parties
(a) In General.
(1) Number.
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts. Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(2).
ANSWER: 25.

6. Access Google Scholar. What is the citation for the case Jiminez v. Quarterman?

You mean Jimenez v. Quarterman. Under Legal opinions and journals, I found: Jimenez v. Quarterman
129 S. Ct. 681, 555 US 113, 172 L. Ed. 2d 475 - Supreme Court, 2009.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Jimenez+v.+Quarterman&as_sdt=2%2C34&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

7. Access the Hoovers website and locate information about Office Dept. Inc. OFFICE DEPOT, INC.??? AND IF SO, THERE ARE 3 JUST ON THE FIRST PAGE.
a. Who is the chairman and CEO of the company?

b. What stock exchange lists the company’s stock, and what is the company’s stock ticker symbol?

c. Identify the company’s top competitors?

8. Access the website for The Department of Labor. Use the site map to locate information. What is the minimum wage of workers covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act?
$7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

lala
10-31-2011, 03:23 PM
9. Access the website MegansLaw.com. Select statutes for California. What is the subject matter of California Business and Professionals Code § 6450?

https://www.meganslaw.com/
MegansLaw.com is a paid subscription site. So, I went to http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/. Wrong again. So, I went to findlaw.com and entered California Business and Professionals Code § 6450. The subject matter is generally about paralegals, and what paralegals should and should not do.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/BPC/1/d3/5.6/s6450

10. Access the website http://www.uscourts.gov.
a. Review the map of the U.S. courts.
(i) What is the address of the Eastern District of Texas Court?

MAIN OFFICE
Street Address
William M. Steger Federal Building and
United States Courthouse
211 West Ferguson Street, Room 106
Tyler TX 75702

(ii) Locate information about Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas. Who is the Judge’s courtroom deputy?

I could not locate any information of his courtroom deputy on that site. So, I went to the directory of judges, clicked his name and Judge, U. S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, which I researched on the net and found: http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=info:judge&judge=7 .
ANSWER: Courtroom Deputy - Rosa Ferguson (903) 590-1054

b. Select “Rules and Policies.” Review the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Review Canon 4. May a judge teach a class at your school? Give your answer and indicate the specific Canon that governs your answer.
A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.
• (A) Law-related Activities.
1. (1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.
http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx

11. Access the website for GPO Access.
a. Select the Code of Federal Regulations and browse the table of contents. What is the subject matter of 16 C.F.R. § 310.4?

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Click Jan. 1,
2011
Part 0-999
Click again
Revised January 1, 2011 1 I 0-999 Federal Trade Commission 6/2/11
Click 310 Telemarketing sales rule 16 CFR part 310
ANSWER:
310.4 Abusive telemarketing acts or practices.

b. Select “Public and Private Laws.” Browse the laws for the 106th Congress. Locate and review Private Law 014. What is the title of this Private Law and what was it designation in the Senate?

Wei Jingsheng
Freedom of
Conscience Act.
What was it designation in the Senate? WHAT? I must be missing something, because it only says “Be it enacted by the Senate . . . “
If that is it’s designation, so be it.

12. Access the website for FDsys. Select the Federal Register for January 29, 2010. Locate the proposed rule for the Department of Labor (OSHA) relating to occupational injury and illness recording and reports requirements.
a. What logo and notice are you given in the upper left-hand corner of the document?

An eagle.

b. Per Bluebook Rule 18, what does this logo mean with regard to citing the proposed rule?

The logo means it is an original print source, and can be cited as if to the original print source.
18.2.1(a)(i)Authenticated documents. “Generally, an authenticated document will have a certificate or logo indicating that a government entity verified that the document is complete and unaltered.”

13. Access the website for the Public Library of Law. What is the citation for the case Barnwick v. United States?

http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx
49 U.S. 429
8 How. 429
12 L.Ed. 1142

https://www.plol.org/Pages/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fPages%2fSecure%2fDocument. aspx%3fd%3dXb%252bYryCtMC6tqsk6uk3uqA%253d%253d%26 l%3dCases%26rp%3d4&d=Xb%2bYryCtMC6tqsk6uk3uqA%3d%3d&l=Cases&rp=4


14. Access the website All About Forms. Select “Show All Business Topics” and then “Corporations.” Locate a form for bylaws of a corporation. What topic does Article II, Section 8 cover?

Article II SECTION 8. Proxies.

15. Access Google. Enter “Arizona Statute 13-1202.” What is the general subject matter of this statute?

http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01202.htm
13-1202. Threatening or intimidating; classification

16. Access the website for the Internal Revenue Service. What is the subject matter of IRS Form 6251?

http://www.irs.gov/
6251 search. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f6251.pdf
Alternative Minimum Tax—Individuals.

17. Access the website Findlaw. Browse cases and do a citation search for 449 U.S. 1 What is the name of the case?

449 U.S. 1 search. Click FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=449&page=1
Directs to http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=449&page=1.
U.S. Supreme Court
COLORADO v. BANNISTER, 449 U.S. 1 (1980)
449 U.S. 1
COLORADO v. BANNISTER
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO
ANSWER: COLORADO v. BANNISTER.

18. Access the website for the National Association for Secretaries Of State. Select “Secretaries of State.” What is the fee to organize or form a limited liability company in your state?

http://nass.org/
http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_contact_display&Itemid=346
http://nass.org/index.php?option=com_contact_display&state_value=NC
http://www.secstate.state.nc.us/
Click Professional Corporation
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/ProfBus/
Click FAQ’S
Click Fees

Fees
Each licensing board either has their own fees set by statute or following the fess as established in the Professional Corporations Act (NCGS 55B-10 and 55B-11) for ALL licensing boards.
Articles of Incorporation/Organization are $125
Certificate of Authority $250
http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/ProfBus/pdf/Fees%20FAQ.pdf
OR
• Repeat steps 1-5, then click Professional LLC’s under Forms, then click Limited Liability Companies (LLC), where you have a list of fees for LLC’s.
L-01A $125 Articles of Organization, LLC (Conversion of Business Entity)


http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/Forms.aspx?PItemId=5429715&Type=LimitedLiability Company

19. Access the appropriate website, such as Findlaw. What is the subject matter of Article IV of your state’s constitution?

Judicial/powers/General Court of Justice/ Courts/Judges/Jurisdictions, etc.
Step 1 http://public.findlaw.com/constitution-day/state-constitutions.html
Step 2 http://ncpedia.org/government/nc-constitution-history
Step 3 http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/legislation/constitution/ncconstitution.html.