It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by HanzHenry
those cereal killers are the worse!
Originally posted by Trueman
I don't believe it's about moral, religion or similar. It's just about money. Here in USA people sue for any stupid reason if that will represent a profit. Pay attention, they always sue big companies, in this case Apple.
That complaint, meanwhile, manages to mention 9/11, coc aine, the virtues of life in the 1950s, Abu Ghraib, and what he feels are the detrimental effects of allowing gays to serve in the military.
Originally posted by WhiteAlice
The PC Mag article states that "the 50-page filing is rambling, grammatically incorrect, and generally unhinged."
That complaint, meanwhile, manages to mention 9/11, coc aine, the virtues of life in the 1950s, Abu Ghraib, and what he feels are the detrimental effects of allowing gays to serve in the military.
Frivolous lawsuits tend to get dismissed as frivolous.
Originally posted by jedi_hamster
USA, the land of idiots.
reading the first line is too hard for them already, so why bother.
In a non-criminal case in a United States district court, a litigant (or a litigant's attorney) who presents any pleading, written motion or other paper to the court is required, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to certify that, to the best of the presenter's knowledge and belief, the legal contentions "are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law".[2] Monetary civil penalties for violation of this rule may in some cases be imposed on the litigant or the attorney under Rule 11.[3] In one case, the Seventh Circuit issued an order giving such an attorney "14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $10,000 for his frivolous arguments".[4] A similar rule penalizing frivolous litigation applies in U.S. Bankruptcy Court under Rule 9011.[5]
Originally posted by woodwardjnr
In the UK they are introducing a law that will mean all pornographic sites will only be available on an opt in basis. So you will have to phone your ISP and ask them to let you look at naughty things.
Creates a bit of a problem for those of us who live at home in our parents house. I'm not looking forward to the conversation about how we must keep access to porn open.