Which is it Mr. Pro Lawyer? "GAWKER might have broken any laws" or the "freelancer in CA might have!" and if GAWKER might have, then how are they not "relevant"?
Real legal brilliance on your part, but you have given yourself too much rope and we know what fools do with too much rope.
Too bad this was not on Judge Judy, it would have been interesting to see on tv, her giving you your lunch!
watching a few episodes of Law & Order makes anyone a lawyer these days, didn't you get the memo?
Which is it Mr. Pro Lawyer? "GAWKER might have broken any laws" or the "freelancer in CA might have!" and if GAWKER might have, then how are they not "relevant"? "Might not have" sounds as if you were their lawyer, they have a rock solid case!
Real legal brilliance on your part, but you have given yourself too much rope and we know what fools do with too much rope.
Too bad this was not on Judge Judy, it would have been interesting to see on tv, her giving you your lunch!
why are you asking this question. all your prior posts were filled with implications that you are a legal expert so you know the answer.
so now it's Dr "No I have no actual knowledge of the law and I'm as full of crap as the people I'm accusing of being full of crap"
guess what. New York State penal code defines larceny as depriving someone of their rightful property whether you took it literally from them or found it and didn't return it. and if the item is valued at over $1000 (which the phone would be) it's Grand Larceny. so yeah, it would be a crime in New York
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No
It IS? Can you see what finger I'm raising to the screen right now too?
mature real mature. Now folks will really want to take you seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.No
Bingo! So GAWKER - might not have broken any laws - some freelancer in California might have. Got it - so GAWKER / Gizmodo isn't relevant.
try again. said party, if that is how it went down, was working under Gizmodo's employment using Gizmodo's money. Just like the folks that took it apart etc.
this was not some case of a nobody buying it and posting the info on a board that anyone can sign up and write articles etc.
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
@Dr.No - New York law (252 Personal Property) actually gives you a list of actions to follow when finding lost property that is thought to be in excess of 20 dollars value: 1) find the owner and return it; 2) hand over to the owner of where you found said property; and 3) turn in to the police. You have 10 days to do this and then the property sits for 120 days at the police station before being declared abandoned and you can file a claim.
Don't know CA law, but probably about the same - given everything about the neither the bar owner nor the police being notified.
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
Except that guy - GET HIM!
The only reason you're sticking around after such a beating is because you're grounded this weekend, isn't it? Tough break, kiddo.. I sympathize with you.
The "finder" is guilty of theft. Gizmodo is guilty of purchasing stolen goods.
See sections 496 and 485 of California Penal Code and 2080 of California Civil Code
In New York:
Assuming the iPhone was transported and purchased there... The phone was still stolen in California, so it would be purchasing of stolen goods in New York.
It's not "finders keepers" in New York either. So even under New York law, it would be considered both theft of property and receiving stolen goods, along with the crime of selling the stolen goods.
You are not only immature, you don't know how to read.
Gizmodo, by their own admission, took possession of the prototype and they took it apart and took the photos. And one of their own people filmed and posted a video of himself holding the actual prototype in his hand.
Now please go back to the sandbox and I'll get you a cartoon of chocolate milk and a cookie.
Now, back on topic NoNo boy. Can you answer who paid $5000 for the prototype?
Gawker didn't pay for the prototype - they paid for some pictures - the freelancer paid for the prototype - which is secret as defined by "lying around in bars".
I'll tell you how this will go down if Apple pursues this. Gawker will get a TON of page-views, and Apple's security blanket will be lifted utterly in a court of public record. Now what's smarter - Apple letting an embarrassing fiasco drop - or letting all of their procedures out of the bag while a tabloid site collects page-views all the while?
No, because your are disrupting the thread with too many posts, all completely rude and antisocial. Group think, ie government is what makes laws which you clearly have no regard for. You don't belong here, or anywhere else I'm thinking, which is probably why you are so distasteful and obnoxious.
You are not only immature, you don't know how to read.
Gizmodo, by their own admission, took possession of the prototype and they took it apart and took the photos. And one of their own people filmed and posted a video of himself holding the actual prototype in his hand.
Now please go back to the sandbox and I'll get you a cartoon of chocolate milk and a cookie.
You said a freelancer - not a fulltime employee in CA took possession. How is that Gawker taking possession? I do like the personal attacks tho. Sore loser much?
(or is this that hots for Tekstud thing again? Tekstud is that you?)
Gawker didn't pay for the prototype - they paid for some pictures - the freelancer paid for the prototype - which is secret as defined by "lying around in bars".
I'll tell you how this will go down if Apple pursues this. Gawker will get a TON of page-views, and Apple's security blanket will be lifted utterly in a court of public record. Now what's smarter - Apple letting an embarrassing fiasco drop - or letting all of their procedures out of the bag while a tabloid site collects page-views all the while?
Comments
Which is it Mr. Pro Lawyer? "GAWKER might have broken any laws" or the "freelancer in CA might have!" and if GAWKER might have, then how are they not "relevant"?
Real legal brilliance on your part, but you have given yourself too much rope and we know what fools do with too much rope.
Too bad this was not on Judge Judy, it would have been interesting to see on tv, her giving you your lunch!
watching a few episodes of Law & Order makes anyone a lawyer these days, didn't you get the memo?
Actually, this is probably more fitting..
pwned!
Well at least that was less than 10 words - so that of course means you're right! Have a drink at a German bar. You've earned it.
Which is it Mr. Pro Lawyer? "GAWKER might have broken any laws" or the "freelancer in CA might have!" and if GAWKER might have, then how are they not "relevant"? "Might not have" sounds as if you were their lawyer, they have a rock solid case!
Real legal brilliance on your part, but you have given yourself too much rope and we know what fools do with too much rope.
Too bad this was not on Judge Judy, it would have been interesting to see on tv, her giving you your lunch!
When did freelancers = employees?
(woot! less than 10 words!)
Well at least that was less than 10 words - so that of course means you're right! Have a drink at a German bar. You've earned it.
I'll take that over the kool-aid you're trying to serve us..
Well at least that was less than 10 words - so that of course means you're right! Have a drink at a German bar. You've earned it.
What? To get my iPhone stolen and sold in another state? No, thanks!
Would it be recognized as stolen in NY?
why are you asking this question. all your prior posts were filled with implications that you are a legal expert so you know the answer.
so now it's Dr "No I have no actual knowledge of the law and I'm as full of crap as the people I'm accusing of being full of crap"
guess what. New York State penal code defines larceny as depriving someone of their rightful property whether you took it literally from them or found it and didn't return it. and if the item is valued at over $1000 (which the phone would be) it's Grand Larceny. so yeah, it would be a crime in New York
It IS? Can you see what finger I'm raising to the screen right now too?
mature real mature. Now folks will really want to take you seriously.
Bingo! So GAWKER - might not have broken any laws - some freelancer in California might have. Got it - so GAWKER / Gizmodo isn't relevant.
try again. said party, if that is how it went down, was working under Gizmodo's employment using Gizmodo's money. Just like the folks that took it apart etc.
this was not some case of a nobody buying it and posting the info on a board that anyone can sign up and write articles etc.
When did freelancers = employees?
(woot! less than 10 words!)
Meaningless 10 words though.
Now, back on topic NoNo boy. Can you answer who paid $5000 for the prototype?
Ok that is quite enough. Dr. No must go.
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
Except that guy - GET HIM!
@Dr.No - New York law (252 Personal Property) actually gives you a list of actions to follow when finding lost property that is thought to be in excess of 20 dollars value: 1) find the owner and return it; 2) hand over to the owner of where you found said property; and 3) turn in to the police. You have 10 days to do this and then the property sits for 120 days at the police station before being declared abandoned and you can file a claim.
Don't know CA law, but probably about the same - given everything about the neither the bar owner nor the police being notified.
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
Except that guy - GET HIM!
So much for back on topic
Because only group think is tolerated and that's what makes a conversation interesting isn't it?
"NAH - BAN HIM raaarrrwwwwrrr - I don't wike him - he won't think like I do - RAARR"
Puleeze. Step outside the echo-chamber and THINK. How is this "story" even a story when nothing has happened other than "someone in Santa Clara is looking into it"?
Is that even news? But we can leap from that to - oh ya - Gawker is guilty guilty guilty! Because everyone says so here.
Except that guy - GET HIM!
The only reason you're sticking around after such a beating is because you're grounded this weekend, isn't it? Tough break, kiddo.. I sympathize with you.
The "finder" is guilty of theft. Gizmodo is guilty of purchasing stolen goods.
See sections 496 and 485 of California Penal Code and 2080 of California Civil Code
In New York:
Assuming the iPhone was transported and purchased there... The phone was still stolen in California, so it would be purchasing of stolen goods in New York.
It's not "finders keepers" in New York either. So even under New York law, it would be considered both theft of property and receiving stolen goods, along with the crime of selling the stolen goods.
See articles 252, 165
Gawker / Gizmodo only paid for the PICTURES
You are not only immature, you don't know how to read.
Gizmodo, by their own admission, took possession of the prototype and they took it apart and took the photos. And one of their own people filmed and posted a video of himself holding the actual prototype in his hand.
Now please go back to the sandbox and I'll get you a cartoon of chocolate milk and a cookie.
So much for back on topic
Meaningless 10 words though.
Now, back on topic NoNo boy. Can you answer who paid $5000 for the prototype?
Gawker didn't pay for the prototype - they paid for some pictures - the freelancer paid for the prototype - which is secret as defined by "lying around in bars".
I'll tell you how this will go down if Apple pursues this. Gawker will get a TON of page-views, and Apple's security blanket will be lifted utterly in a court of public record. Now what's smarter - Apple letting an embarrassing fiasco drop - or letting all of their procedures out of the bag while a tabloid site collects page-views all the while?
Bring it on! It's popcorn time!
You are not only immature, you don't know how to read.
Gizmodo, by their own admission, took possession of the prototype and they took it apart and took the photos. And one of their own people filmed and posted a video of himself holding the actual prototype in his hand.
Now please go back to the sandbox and I'll get you a cartoon of chocolate milk and a cookie.
You said a freelancer - not a fulltime employee in CA took possession. How is that Gawker taking possession? I do like the personal attacks tho. Sore loser much?
(or is this that hots for Tekstud thing again? Tekstud is that you?)
Gawker didn't pay for the prototype - they paid for some pictures - the freelancer paid for the prototype - which is secret as defined by "lying around in bars".
I'll tell you how this will go down if Apple pursues this. Gawker will get a TON of page-views, and Apple's security blanket will be lifted utterly in a court of public record. Now what's smarter - Apple letting an embarrassing fiasco drop - or letting all of their procedures out of the bag while a tabloid site collects page-views all the while?
Bring it on! It's popcorn time!
Clearly a freelancer.