dtrizzle

The plain text idea is brilliant and something I've been thinking about for a while. If they could do this, it would reduce storage and transmission costs of the courts various case management systems. I would increase the speed of the CMS systems. It would enable searchability and allow all readers and writers to render documents according to their preferences. Instead of scanned PDFs, they could have web forms with validation to make sure submissions are correct. This could be the future, if someone in law has some tech know how and vision.

Quick note: "On May 6, 2024, the California State Court accept our claim." The court where you filed your lawsuit is a federal court, not a state court. Specifically, it's the U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, as noted on the complaint. Of course, it is located in the State of California.

Cal, not Carl.

I agree with selling to corporations. However, most big law lawyers will need a higher level of PDF functionality. At a quick glance, I notice that the tools can't manipulate bookmarks, which are required for electronic filing in most courts.

There is a slight mistake above.

The person who represents Coca Cola may not be a licensed attorney, even if they work for the corporation. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 116.530, subd. (a) and (b).) Corporations typically send a non-attorney member of their legal staff to appear for them.

Note that you cite CCP 116.540, but subdivision (m) specifically states:

(m) Nothing in this section shall operate or be construed to authorize an attorney to participate in a small claims action except as expressly provided in Section 116.530.

Thus, the the general rule of CCP 116.530 applies, despite the language you quote in CCP 116.540, subd. (b).

The controlling language in CCP 116.530 is:

(a) Except as permitted by this section, no attorney may take part in the conduct or defense of a small claims action.

(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply if the attorney is appearing to maintain or defend an action in any of the following capacities:

(1) By or against himself or herself.

(2) By or against a partnership in which he or she is a general partner and in which all the partners are attorneys.

(3) By or against a professional corporation of which he or she is an officer or director and of which all other officers and directors are attorneys.

(I serve as a temporary judge in CA and have presided over many small claims matters so I deal with this problem regularly.)

This has been an issue in criminal prosecutions. Breath machine: You are over a .08 BAC. Defendant: No I wasn't. Let me see the source code. Courts and companies: NO! It's secret. [1]

[1] https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2021/sep/15/clash-bet...

Looks like the people who are grandfathered in are people who paid for web access. If you purchased the Android or iOS app (like me), you are not grandfathered in and do not get a free plus account.

Source: https://blog.pocketcasts.com/2019/09/18/major-new-update/

The idea that encryption algorithms need to be well tested over time is why many security experts do not trust Telegram's encryption algorithm (MTProto).

You are not wrong. But in this case there was a significant amount of contemporaneous reporting when Ive left, predating this book.

The iPhone. The end.

No Gmail.

Zune!

The Federal Rules of Evidence permit a judge to question witnesses in addition to the parties. See Rule 614 linked below. And I think you mean plaintiff. A prosecutor generally refers to a lawyer representing the government in a criminal prosecution. This case is dispute between private parties. https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vi/rule-614/

This project reminded me a proselint, which appears to be a similar style checker. Sadly, that project appears to have been inactive for at least three years.

https://github.com/amperser/proselint

They still have a tremendous amount of power and other companies should still fear them. For example, Microsoft Teams versus Slack.

Microsoft might not be the leader that it once was but they've done a very good job of reinventing themselves. It's a little unfair to call them dead.

Non-paywall: http://archive.is/j6f3G

ghost.js

The warrant requirement for content online, while good for privacy, absolutely hobbles criminal defendants. I pointed out this troubling issue years ago in a similar thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11073479.

I'm pretty sure the Arizona legislature changed the law to make it clear that Zestimates were lawful. http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/must-zillow-the-...

Thomas’s dissent is not about whether as a policy matter, someone should receive their money back. I suspect everyone thinks the Petitioners’ should get refunds. Rather, it’s about whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that right.

In his view, based on previous precedent, it does not. As a matter of previous precedent, the majorities approach is somewhat legally strained based on the Due Process Clause. But as a matter of policy, the majority's decision seems correct.

"However, in the second trial the small claims cap of $10,000 is removed and the judge can potentially award much more money in damages to the plaintiff."

This is wrong. $10,000 is the absolute damages cap in small claims court and the small claims appeal (which is really just a new trial). See California Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.220 and 116.221. The exact same claim is simply heard in front of a new judicial officer. It is not possible to amend the claim to add more damages in the appeal. See California Code of Civil Procedure Section 116.770(d).

A judge could award another $1000 but only if the appeal was frivilous. See California Code of Civil Procedure 116.790. This happens rarely.

* I'm a CA licensed attorney and just happened to attend the temporary judge small claims training just a couple weeks ago.

In California:

The DA must follow this rule: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1054-1.html.

The DA also has obligations under Brady v. Maryland: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=955043312626967...

The defense must follow this rule: http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-1054-3.html

> Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence, including the video you're describing

Not quite. Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence that is in the possession of the prosecution team. In terms of the example I gave, facebook would not be considered part of the prosecution team. Thus, the prosecution does not possess the video. Thus, the Brady obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence does not apply.

As a general matter, the “prosecution team” includes persons or agencies (1) “acting on the government’s behalf in the case,” People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal. 4th 1082, 1132 (2007), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995); and (2) “assisting the government’s case,” In re Brown, 17 Cal. 4th 873, 881 (1998).

Here are some California cases that discuss the issue, but I'm pretty sure federal law and the law of most states is similar:

The prosecution has no “duty to conduct the defendant’s investigation for him.” People v. Verdugo, 50 Cal. 4th 263, 288–89 (2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Williams, 58 Cal. 4th 197, 257 (2013); People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal. 4th 1082, 1134 (2007), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Salazar, 35 Cal. 4th 1031, 1048–50 (2005).

Because “the law does not ‘impose a general duty on prosecutorial officials to serve as defense investigators,’ ” People v. Moore, 50 Cal. App. 3d 989, 993 (1975) (quoting People v. Beagle, 6 Cal. 3d 441, 450–51 (1972), superseded on other grounds, Cal. Const., art. I, § 28), police are not generally required to collect particular items of evidence, People v. Montes, 58 Cal. 4th 809, 837 (2014); In re Michael L., 39 Cal. 3d 81, 86 (1985) (“police cannot be expected to gather up everything which might eventually prove useful to the defense”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Frye, 18 Cal. 4th 894, 943 (1998) (“as a general matter, due process does not require the police to collect particular items of evidence”), overruled on other grounds, People v. Doolin, 45 Cal. 4th 390, 421 n.22 (2009); People v. Callen, 194 Cal. App. 3d 558, 561 (1987) (“[The] law does not impose upon law enforcement agencies the requirement that they take the initiative, or even any affirmative action, in procuring … evidence deemed necessary to the defense of an accused.”) (citation and internal quotations omitted); People v. Bradley, 159 Cal. App. 3d 399, 407 (1984) (same).

Throw the case names and citations into Google Scholar to find the full text of the cases - which provide reasoning (unpersuasive, in my view).

See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11075110

In short, you can do that. But in real life, you typically won't get the data. That's why police and prosecutor bust down your door instead of mailing you a subpoena asking you to bring incriminating evidence to the police station.

About subpoenaing the person who the data belongs to, I agree. However, realistically speaking, this is not an effective way to get the data. In my experience, someone who is about to be exposed and subjected to criminal liability would simply delete the video or remove their access to it.

Note that under 18 U.S. Code § 2704, a related problem is that only governmental entities can require preservation of data.

I have not seen any legal authority for the defense getting a search warrant. If you can find any authority or precedent for that, I would love to see it. It's an awesome idea.

About tipping the scales: In my view, as someone who is a criminal defense attorney who litigates cases every day, yes. But I imagine that is not the view of a well meaning principled privacy advocate.

Before 180 days, you need a warrant. After 180 days, you need a (d) order. Can the defense can get it using a 18 U.S. Code § 2703(d) order? In my view, the answer is no. The statute specifically refers to a "governmental entity" being able to seek the order. I don't believe that includes criminal defendants.

See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2703

"A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation."

No. There is no exception in the law for a defense trial subpoena. It bars both prosecution and defense subpoenas. See the law review article linked above.

No. That's the whole point. The defense can subpoena the video but the law would prevent the company from complying with the subpoena. The defense and DA subpoena power is the same. Thus, if the DA can't get it with a subpoena, neither can the defense.