Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
I wasn't aware he admitted to possession, guilt or confessed. I'm still not.
I did not state they were guilty because they showed they had it.
It does appear that what they did post online gave the police enough evidence to get a search warrent. Possibly for trafficking stolen goods.
It appears the police didnt have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the home of the person who originally found the phone. This may change as they gather evidence from Chens computers.
If he admitted he stole the phone then I would say there is little difference between the two. Both provided evidence to the police.
What exactly is it you would like to see me get myself out of?
oh and has anyone else seen this (it was posted up on cultofmac)?
I love the f***ers that make stuff like this. Great new(?) humour meme. Oh, and, welcome y'all to South East Asia. Suing, raiding and generally messing with bloggers' lives are the norm. Only substitute the political elite motivating the raids with the corporate elite motivating the raids in the US. Welcome to your land of the free, post-you-know-who's administration.
If this wasn't a popular, fluffy consumer product, and instead had something to do with terrorism, the CIA, "national security" or whatever, or if it was Jason Al Mahmoud instead of Chen... Good bloody luck to him. Black-bagged, bundled off into the black SUVs, and never to be heard from again.
The result (three hours in a Tijuana jail with 20 prostitutes as adjoining cellmates and two Hell's Angels as actual cellmates) of a youthful indiscretion, it is best remembered, with the shaking of my head, as ... an adventure.
May Mr. Chen not be so richly rewarded in-kind.
Ah, "youthful indiscretion"... Intriguing, sir, do go on... Grand Theft Auto after 8 tequila shots?
...The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide who is a reporter and who isn't by whim and preference.
...And believe me, "they" would love it if journalists had no protections, and "they" could have them only report what "they" wanted reported. The united states is 54 out of 100 in press freedoms.
Bingo. With more and more news and information and leaks coming out through digital avenues way, way before the conventional press, the concept of who a journalist is important, not because it's good for the ego of the bloggers but for legal and civil liberties protection and that kind of stuff.
I don't think what Gizmodo did is quite right, but the Govt. raiding homes does raise an eyebrow.
Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
It's really quite simple. Since Engadget apparently did not commit a crime, the journalist shield law applies to them.
If someone comes to you and says: "Here's a new phone, would you like to take pictures of it", that's well within a journalist's role.
If someone says, "would you like to buy and take possession of this phone", it's illegal theft.
Now, if Engadget actually TOOK POSSESSION of the phone, you might have a case, but we don't know that. More importantly, if Engadget said "we need to return this to Apple because the law says we must" and the 'finder' said "you're right, I'll take it to Apple right now", then Engadget has no culpability.
While it IS possible that Engadget broke the law, there is no smoking gun public confession of that in their report, so the cases are quite different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleighquinn
Gizmodo must have extremely stupid attorneys.
Their defense should be that Apple must prove malice of forethought. They should be putting it upon Apple to prove they (Gawker/Gizmodo) had knowledge what they were paying for exclusive right to was stolen property.
There are already a few things that make the warrant questionable, such as Apple had already regained possession of their property after Gizmodo proved it was actually Apple property and not a knock of by going the extra step of disassembling it.
While I wouldn't put it past these attorneys, those claims aren't going anywhere.
Did Gizmodo know it was stolen property? If they have an IQ over about 30 they should have. The 'finder' was telling people it was a prototype Apple phone - according to reports from other web sites. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it (after they had an earlier offer to pay cash for Apple prototypes). Would they have paid $5,000 without knowing what it was? Then there's the fact that both the 'finder' and Gizmodo said they knew who it belonged to, but did not make a reasonable effort (by any reasonable standards) to return it. Then, as soon as Gizmodo took the back off of it, they saw the Apple ID tags, so EVEN IF they didn't know up to that point, they should have closed it back up and returned it to Apple.
It would take an awfully gullible jury to say they didn't know what it was.
As for the warrant, the fact that Apple got the phone back doesn't mean that the police can't investigate a crime. By that standard, people could go out and steal cars all day long and when the police show up, they'd simply hand them the keys and say 'no harm, no foul'. A crime has been committed - even if the property is returned. And since disclosure of trade secrets was involved, it would be impossible for Apple to be made whole simply by returning the phone - the damage was already done when Gizmodo published the information.
Maybe you have a place on Gizmodo's legal team. You're not good enough for Psystar, either.
And to borrow from another post I made above this one:
"There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property."
Reporters and police both utilize paid informants and buy exclusivity all of the time.
The only distinction is if you consider Jason Chen a reporter or not.
Circumstances are different here, had Gizmodo received the iPhone directly from an Apple employee this might be more similar. And Apple would have punished said employee rather than go after Gizmodo, much the same way the NSA likely punished the agent and didn't go after the reporter.
I wasn't aware he admitted to possession, guilt or confessed. I'm still not.
I did not state they were guilty because they showed they had it.
It does appear that what they did post online gave the police enough evidence to get a search warrent. Possibly for trafficking stolen goods.
It appears the police didnt have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the home of the person who originally found the phone. This may change as they gather evidence from Chens computers.
If he admitted he stole the phone then I would say there is little difference between the two. Both provided evidence to the police.
What exactly is it you would like to see me get myself out of?
Thanks for the compliment of calling me astute
You backtracked from your previous statements. That was the point.
It's really quite simple. Since Engadget apparently did not commit a crime, the journalist shield law applies to them.
If someone comes to you and says: "Here's a new phone, would you like to take pictures of it", that's well within a journalist's role.
If someone says, "would you like to buy and take possession of this phone", it's illegal theft.
Now, if Engadget actually TOOK POSSESSION of the phone, you might have a case, but we don't know that. More importantly, if Engadget said "we need to return this to Apple because the law says we must" and the 'finder' said "you're right, I'll take it to Apple right now", then Engadget has no culpability.
While it IS possible that Engadget broke the law, there is no smoking gun public confession of that in their report, so the cases are quite different.
While I wouldn't put it past these attorneys, those claims aren't going anywhere.
Did Gizmodo know it was stolen property? If they have an IQ over about 30 they should have. The 'finder' was telling people it was a prototype Apple phone - according to reports from other web sites. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it (after they had an earlier offer to pay cash for Apple prototypes). Would they have paid $5,000 without knowing what it was? Then there's the fact that both the 'finder' and Gizmodo said they knew who it belonged to, but did not make a reasonable effort (by any reasonable standards) to return it. Then, as soon as Gizmodo took the back off of it, they saw the Apple ID tags, so EVEN IF they didn't know up to that point, they should have closed it back up and returned it to Apple.
It would take an awfully gullible jury to say they didn't know what it was.
As for the warrant, the fact that Apple got the phone back doesn't mean that the police can't investigate a crime. By that standard, people could go out and steal cars all day long and when the police show up, they'd simply hand them the keys and say 'no harm, no foul'. A crime has been committed - even if the property is returned. And since disclosure of trade secrets was involved, it would be impossible for Apple to be made whole simply by returning the phone - the damage was already done when Gizmodo published the information.
Maybe you have a place on Gizmodo's legal team. You're not good enough for Psystar, either.
Edngadget has already been addressed via possible charges of conspiracy, hence the possibility of Apple investigating more bloggers. Are you really willing to sacrifice civil liberties to be right? They would not be shielded either as they published pictures of what they obviously knew to be stolen property as well, via your logic.
Circumstances are different here, had Gizmodo received the iPhone directly from an Apple employee this might be more similar. And Apple would have punished said employee rather than go after Gizmodo, much the same way the NSA likely punished the agent and didn't go after the reporter.
There is no difference and one is actually worse as it was the trafficking national security secrets. Both involved the "theft" if you choose to utilize that term, of items not belonging to someone and passing it to the press.
If Gizmodo's argument passes muster, then any mafia organization would be able to open a blog and claimed it as a news bureau. Then they would be able to do their criminal activities and hide themselves behind the 1st Amendment and shield law to fend off their ill-begotten gains. This will be Gizmodo's contribution to the great American invention of crime pays.
If Gizmodo's argument passes muster, then any mafia organization would be able to open a blog and claimed it as a news bureau. Then they would be able to do their criminal activities and hide themselves behind the 1st Amendment and shield law to fend off their ill-begotten gains. This will be Gizmodo's contribution to the great American invention of crime pays.
Nice assessment based upon actual precedent and legal opinion. You must work for the prosecution.
Just curious, are you in any way related to Gaby Derbyshire?
I think he was trying to point out that your "legal arguments" are about on par with hers --- laughable.
Pro tip: Apple will not be a party to this CRIMINAL matter -- it will be the state of CA vs. Chen/Gawker. In other words, from the first line you typed it was obvious you don't have a clue what your talking about.
Disclaimer: I am attorney but not licensed in CA.
EDIT: This was directed at the post that Curtis responded to -- not his post.
I think he was trying to point out that your "legal arguments" are about on par with hers --- laughable.
Pro tip: Apple will not be a party to this CRIMINAL matter -- it will be the state of CA vs. Chen/Gawker. In other words, from the first line you typed it was obvious you don't have a clue what your talking about.
Disclaimer: I am attorney but not licensed in CA.
EDIT: This was directed at the post that Curtis responded to -- not his post.
I never stated apple was involved directly and if you accurately read the post this was in response to, you would have noted that. I stated how it should have gone and how it did go.
I stated how Apple utilized their influence to obtain this outcome without having to be involved directly. They acted via proxy. You are obviously not a criminal attorney or you would have stated so and criminal, corporate and tort processes are veery much different.
And that is before you add tax law, bequests, real estate law, etc.
Being an attorney does not make you an expert on this case without specifics, but you know that already, correct?
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David
Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing...
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
Which can be read any way you wish, but can still be explained as Apple utilizing it's influence for a desired affect by ANY good attorney.
I will address the Malice Aforethought once I find precedent, though you are incorrect in it being just murder. It is also utilized in assaults violence against individuals historically. Wounding and assault with a foreign object (horses and vehicles) also historically applies.
This is like Battleship or chess. Very much enjoyable.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
Not exactly a precedent, but within the same vein:
Comments
Admission of possession.
Admission of guilt.
A confession.
What every investigator dreams of.
Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
I wasn't aware he admitted to possession, guilt or confessed. I'm still not.
I did not state they were guilty because they showed they had it.
It does appear that what they did post online gave the police enough evidence to get a search warrent. Possibly for trafficking stolen goods.
It appears the police didnt have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the home of the person who originally found the phone. This may change as they gather evidence from Chens computers.
If he admitted he stole the phone then I would say there is little difference between the two. Both provided evidence to the police.
What exactly is it you would like to see me get myself out of?
Thanks for the compliment of calling me astute
oh and has anyone else seen this (it was posted up on cultofmac)?
If this wasn't a popular, fluffy consumer product, and instead had something to do with terrorism, the CIA, "national security" or whatever, or if it was Jason Al Mahmoud instead of Chen... Good bloody luck to him. Black-bagged, bundled off into the black SUVs, and never to be heard from again.
The result (three hours in a Tijuana jail with 20 prostitutes as adjoining cellmates and two Hell's Angels as actual cellmates) of a youthful indiscretion, it is best remembered, with the shaking of my head, as ... an adventure.
May Mr. Chen not be so richly rewarded in-kind.
Ah, "youthful indiscretion"... Intriguing, sir, do go on... Grand Theft Auto after 8 tequila shots?
The $5,000 was for exclusive access only with the promise of returning it to Apple after they had finished with it.
I bet they have that in writing...!
... as if that will save their sorry ass!
I guess that's why they disassembled the phone, because they paid for "access".
...The fact is you can't arbitrarily decide who is a reporter and who isn't by whim and preference.
...And believe me, "they" would love it if journalists had no protections, and "they" could have them only report what "they" wanted reported. The united states is 54 out of 100 in press freedoms.
Bingo. With more and more news and information and leaks coming out through digital avenues way, way before the conventional press, the concept of who a journalist is important, not because it's good for the ego of the bloggers but for legal and civil liberties protection and that kind of stuff.
I don't think what Gizmodo did is quite right, but the Govt. raiding homes does raise an eyebrow.
Admission of possession.
Admission of guilt.
A confession.
What every investigator dreams of.
Is that not the same thing everyone has already placed Gizmodo in front of the firing squad for? Because they published pictures with Jason Chen having taken it apart?
Didn't everyone, including you, state that Gizmodo was guilty because they had shown to the world they had it?
It has been reported they interviewed the person that originally took the phone. The authorities had knowledge of the original perpetrator of the crime.
Why wasn't a warrant issued for HIS apartment to be searched?
Since you have so astutely made the case against Gizmodo and are so informed in criminal procedure, tell me what the difference is between someone admitting they had an item reported stolen, to the authorities investigating the matter no less, and what everyone has accused Gizmodo of?
I would like to see how you get yourself out of this one.
It's really quite simple. Since Engadget apparently did not commit a crime, the journalist shield law applies to them.
If someone comes to you and says: "Here's a new phone, would you like to take pictures of it", that's well within a journalist's role.
If someone says, "would you like to buy and take possession of this phone", it's illegal theft.
Now, if Engadget actually TOOK POSSESSION of the phone, you might have a case, but we don't know that. More importantly, if Engadget said "we need to return this to Apple because the law says we must" and the 'finder' said "you're right, I'll take it to Apple right now", then Engadget has no culpability.
While it IS possible that Engadget broke the law, there is no smoking gun public confession of that in their report, so the cases are quite different.
Gizmodo must have extremely stupid attorneys.
Their defense should be that Apple must prove malice of forethought. They should be putting it upon Apple to prove they (Gawker/Gizmodo) had knowledge what they were paying for exclusive right to was stolen property.
There are already a few things that make the warrant questionable, such as Apple had already regained possession of their property after Gizmodo proved it was actually Apple property and not a knock of by going the extra step of disassembling it.
While I wouldn't put it past these attorneys, those claims aren't going anywhere.
Did Gizmodo know it was stolen property? If they have an IQ over about 30 they should have. The 'finder' was telling people it was a prototype Apple phone - according to reports from other web sites. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it (after they had an earlier offer to pay cash for Apple prototypes). Would they have paid $5,000 without knowing what it was? Then there's the fact that both the 'finder' and Gizmodo said they knew who it belonged to, but did not make a reasonable effort (by any reasonable standards) to return it. Then, as soon as Gizmodo took the back off of it, they saw the Apple ID tags, so EVEN IF they didn't know up to that point, they should have closed it back up and returned it to Apple.
It would take an awfully gullible jury to say they didn't know what it was.
As for the warrant, the fact that Apple got the phone back doesn't mean that the police can't investigate a crime. By that standard, people could go out and steal cars all day long and when the police show up, they'd simply hand them the keys and say 'no harm, no foul'. A crime has been committed - even if the property is returned. And since disclosure of trade secrets was involved, it would be impossible for Apple to be made whole simply by returning the phone - the damage was already done when Gizmodo published the information.
Maybe you have a place on Gizmodo's legal team. You're not good enough for Psystar, either.
Go Gizmodo!
And from everyone who was just about to buy a soon to be has-been iPhone a big THANKS!!
Apple screwed up, a mistake occurred and they just have to live with it and do better next time.
They can´t go around trying to change a tigers stripes or make the world obey their wishes.
Imagine if the guy or Gizmodo sold the iPhone to the Chinese?
Yea! Count your blessings you got it back.
But they CAN protect what is theirs.
And to borrow from another post I made above this one:
"There was recently a case wherein someone from the NSA was smuggling documents out to a reporter. The reporter was therefore in possession of top secret documents and reported on them.
They didn't go after the reporter. They didn't raid his home. They went after the whistle blower, but that's to be expected. The reports embarrassed the NSA and this person violated his oath of secrecy. But the reporter? He's just fine. He did his job and wasn't charged with possession of stolen property."
Reporters and police both utilize paid informants and buy exclusivity all of the time.
The only distinction is if you consider Jason Chen a reporter or not.
Circumstances are different here, had Gizmodo received the iPhone directly from an Apple employee this might be more similar. And Apple would have punished said employee rather than go after Gizmodo, much the same way the NSA likely punished the agent and didn't go after the reporter.
I wasn't aware he admitted to possession, guilt or confessed. I'm still not.
I did not state they were guilty because they showed they had it.
It does appear that what they did post online gave the police enough evidence to get a search warrent. Possibly for trafficking stolen goods.
It appears the police didnt have enough evidence to get a warrent to search the home of the person who originally found the phone. This may change as they gather evidence from Chens computers.
If he admitted he stole the phone then I would say there is little difference between the two. Both provided evidence to the police.
What exactly is it you would like to see me get myself out of?
Thanks for the compliment of calling me astute
You backtracked from your previous statements. That was the point.
It's really quite simple. Since Engadget apparently did not commit a crime, the journalist shield law applies to them.
If someone comes to you and says: "Here's a new phone, would you like to take pictures of it", that's well within a journalist's role.
If someone says, "would you like to buy and take possession of this phone", it's illegal theft.
Now, if Engadget actually TOOK POSSESSION of the phone, you might have a case, but we don't know that. More importantly, if Engadget said "we need to return this to Apple because the law says we must" and the 'finder' said "you're right, I'll take it to Apple right now", then Engadget has no culpability.
While it IS possible that Engadget broke the law, there is no smoking gun public confession of that in their report, so the cases are quite different.
While I wouldn't put it past these attorneys, those claims aren't going anywhere.
Did Gizmodo know it was stolen property? If they have an IQ over about 30 they should have. The 'finder' was telling people it was a prototype Apple phone - according to reports from other web sites. Gizmodo paid $5,000 for it (after they had an earlier offer to pay cash for Apple prototypes). Would they have paid $5,000 without knowing what it was? Then there's the fact that both the 'finder' and Gizmodo said they knew who it belonged to, but did not make a reasonable effort (by any reasonable standards) to return it. Then, as soon as Gizmodo took the back off of it, they saw the Apple ID tags, so EVEN IF they didn't know up to that point, they should have closed it back up and returned it to Apple.
It would take an awfully gullible jury to say they didn't know what it was.
As for the warrant, the fact that Apple got the phone back doesn't mean that the police can't investigate a crime. By that standard, people could go out and steal cars all day long and when the police show up, they'd simply hand them the keys and say 'no harm, no foul'. A crime has been committed - even if the property is returned. And since disclosure of trade secrets was involved, it would be impossible for Apple to be made whole simply by returning the phone - the damage was already done when Gizmodo published the information.
Maybe you have a place on Gizmodo's legal team. You're not good enough for Psystar, either.
Edngadget has already been addressed via possible charges of conspiracy, hence the possibility of Apple investigating more bloggers. Are you really willing to sacrifice civil liberties to be right? They would not be shielded either as they published pictures of what they obviously knew to be stolen property as well, via your logic.
Circumstances are different here, had Gizmodo received the iPhone directly from an Apple employee this might be more similar. And Apple would have punished said employee rather than go after Gizmodo, much the same way the NSA likely punished the agent and didn't go after the reporter.
There is no difference and one is actually worse as it was the trafficking national security secrets. Both involved the "theft" if you choose to utilize that term, of items not belonging to someone and passing it to the press.
If Gizmodo's argument passes muster, then any mafia organization would be able to open a blog and claimed it as a news bureau. Then they would be able to do their criminal activities and hide themselves behind the 1st Amendment and shield law to fend off their ill-begotten gains. This will be Gizmodo's contribution to the great American invention of crime pays.
Nice assessment based upon actual precedent and legal opinion. You must work for the prosecution.
Just curious, are you in any way related to Gaby Derbyshire?
I think he was trying to point out that your "legal arguments" are about on par with hers --- laughable.
Pro tip: Apple will not be a party to this CRIMINAL matter -- it will be the state of CA vs. Chen/Gawker. In other words, from the first line you typed it was obvious you don't have a clue what your talking about.
Disclaimer: I am attorney but not licensed in CA.
EDIT: This was directed at the post that Curtis responded to -- not his post.
I think he was trying to point out that your "legal arguments" are about on par with hers --- laughable.
Pro tip: Apple will not be a party to this CRIMINAL matter -- it will be the state of CA vs. Chen/Gawker. In other words, from the first line you typed it was obvious you don't have a clue what your talking about.
Disclaimer: I am attorney but not licensed in CA.
EDIT: This was directed at the post that Curtis responded to -- not his post.
I never stated apple was involved directly and if you accurately read the post this was in response to, you would have noted that. I stated how it should have gone and how it did go.
I stated how Apple utilized their influence to obtain this outcome without having to be involved directly. They acted via proxy. You are obviously not a criminal attorney or you would have stated so and criminal, corporate and tort processes are veery much different.
And that is before you add tax law, bequests, real estate law, etc.
Being an attorney does not make you an expert on this case without specifics, but you know that already, correct?
I love how others choose to edit facts for their own purposes. It was already stated in this forum that
One: R.E.A.C.T. is a federal and state task force.
Two: The investigation, search and seizure was done AT THE BEHEST OF APPLE when they "quietly" reported the iPhone stolen.
Three: Apple is a member of the board of R.E.A.C.T. and therefore has an undue amount of influence in their actions.
What? Since when does a government organization have a "board" and where does it say that Apple is on this board?
http://reacttf.org/10701.html
Thanks for playing, try again.
The law is the law and works for the defendant as well as the prosecution. You choose to gloss over the fact the authorities had interviewed the actual perpetrator of trafficking in stolen property. If this did not reek of set up, they should have arrested said perpetrator on the spot for selling stolen property with malice of forethought.
Gizmodo MAY be guilty of buying and receiving stolen property IF the prosecution can prove malice of forethought.
Actually the term is "malice aforethought." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...e+aforethought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought
Moreover it seems to apply to murder cases only. But as you said yourself, thanks for playing.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
Full of sound and fury but signifying nothing...
You should replace the name of Apple with district attorney. That is the entity (along with a judge)with confidence In the evidence to get a warrent from a journalist instead of a supeona which indicates that the d.a. believes they have the evidence to prove that Jason Chen committed a crime. Jason Chen hiring a defense attorney also leads me to believe he may well be charged.
If, as you say, the authorities interviewed the person who found the phone and then the guy sold it to Gizmo then that's why they searched Chen's home. The finder should have given it to the authorities when they inquired about it. Cops hate being lied to, and that is also illegal.
You imply that the warrent was invalid because apple already had retrieved the phone. That is an incorrect assumption. They got a warrent to investigate a stolen property charge and possibly a trafficking in stolen property charge.
I do agree with one part of your post. Giz must have extremely stupid attorneys. I don't however think you are helping their case.
What? Since when does a government organization have a "board" and where does it say that Apple is on this board?
http://reacttf.org/10701.html
Actually the term is "malice aforethought." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...e+aforethought http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malice_aforethought
Moreover it seems to apply to murder cases only. But as you said yourself, thanks for playing.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...-to-apple.html
Which can be read any way you wish, but can still be explained as Apple utilizing it's influence for a desired affect by ANY good attorney.
I will address the Malice Aforethought once I find precedent, though you are incorrect in it being just murder. It is also utilized in assaults violence against individuals historically. Wounding and assault with a foreign object (horses and vehicles) also historically applies.
This is like Battleship or chess. Very much enjoyable.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
Exactly.
The last I heard is that the DA is not looking at the evidence seized in the search because he's considering the ramifications of the journalist shield law. Generally speaking one would have hoped that this would have been done before they conducted the search. Again something the DA alluded to.
Oh and one other thing, if the police execute a warrant, and you are a potential target of a felony, it would probably make sense to hire defense counsel.
From my outside view looking in. All of this will be determined on the specific factual elements involved, few of which anyone in here has direct knowledge of. It will be interesting watching this unfold in a process that is not purely focused on whether you're a apple or gizmodo fan.
Not exactly a precedent, but within the same vein:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...us-media-libel
I do believe I sank your battleship.