GeoHot Donates Leftover Legal Funds to EFF

[JDKJ]

But thanks, anyway.

*But thanks anyway - you don't take a pause between the points.

If you are finished, it would be best if you ceased posting without adding content to the thread. Indeed, if you were to read the rules you would notice a specific rule directing members to not make posts that fail to contribute to the topic. Personal conversations are for private messages and groups.

OT: I'd bet money GeoHot is, as we speak, hacking an iPhone.

Did you miss the post above? Or are you just interested in having me repeat myself?

It would be best if you didn't appoint yourself to the position of an Escapist forum moderator and, instead, allowed the officially appointed moderators to do their job. Particularly given that your repeated attempts to correct my punctuation are personal in nature and have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[JDKJ]

-

Once again: please refrain from posts of low to non-existent content.

Refer to the rules for more information.

I doubt you'd receive more than a warning for repeatedly posting off-topic, personal chatter, but for your sake, it's best to not risk it.

How about you just let me do my own risk-benefit analysis? Thanks.

And if you're referring to my post that says "dub" and nothing more, that's a well-understood means of indicating that the contents of a double-up post (which happens quite frequently around here) has been deleted by the poster.

 

[MercurySteam]

Bravo, mate. Well played.

 

[JDKJ]

posting off-topic, personal chatter, but for your sake, it's best to not risk it.

How about you just let me do my own risk-benefit analysis? Thanks.

And if you're referring to my post that says "dub" and nothing more, that's a well-understood means of indicating that the contents of a double-up post (which happens quite frequently around here) as being deleted by the poster.

Sorry to wade into something that isn't my business, but why don't you just stop replying. Instead of trying to one-up everyone.

Jeez do you have any idea how annoying you are?[/quote]

Oh, yes, absolutely. I'm a lotta things, but self-unaware ain't one of 'em.

 

[JDKJ]

Jeez do you have any idea how annoying you are?

Lol, they replied to that after you just inquired into their oneupmanship. The irony is too bloody funny.

OT: It would be nice to see where the money goes. No doubt most of it will be legal battle fees. Free speech, it seems, is not free.

Doubtful. The EFF has a full roster of salaried in-house staff attorneys. As a non-profit organization operating on a shoe-string budget, they are unlikely to out-source their requirements for legal work and incur the associated attorney fees if they can at all avoid doing so. They'd more likely, and to the fullest extent possible, perform that legal work themselves with their in-house staff attorneys who are already on salary. At least, that's the way they've operated in the past.

I'd assume that, like most non-profits, the bulk of their budget is given over to salaries.

 

[JDKJ]

Jeez do you have any idea how annoying you are?

Lol, they replied to that after you just inquired into their oneupmanship. The irony is too bloody funny.

OT: It would be nice to see where the money goes. No doubt most of it will be legal battle fees. Free speech, it seems, is not free.

Doubtful. The EFF has a full roster of salaried in-house staff attorneys. As a non-profit organization operating on a shoe-string budget, they are unlikely to out-source their requirements for legal work and incur the associated attorney fees if they can at all avoid doing so. They'd more likely, and to the fullest extent possible, perform that legal work themselves with their in-house staff attorneys who are already on salary. At least, that's the way they've operated in the past.

I'd assume that, like most non-profits, the bulk of their budget is given over to salaries.

Mmm, but that money will go towards their income.

Freedom of speech isn't free it seems.

Yes, as I said, the bulk of the EFF's budget probably goes to salaries. And because most attorneys, even the ones who are willing to do pro bono publico work for a non-profit, usually have unavoidable costs associated with their legal education (i.e., a big bag of student loans that they're dragging around behind them), there is a lower limit to the salary that they're willing -- or able -- to accept. I'd imagine that of the total salaries budgeted by the EFF, the salaries of their staff attorneys take up the vast majority of that total. And I don't say that to hate on what an EFF staff attorney gets paid. It's no doubt chump change compare to the private sector. For the ones who do it because their hearts are in a cause in which they believe -- as opposed to the ones for which it was the best gig they could land coming outta law school -- my hat's off to 'em. I wouldn't do it. I don't care about a cause -- I gots to get paid.

 

[Dogstile]

Should've donated to Japan IMHO.
But still nice.

I probably shouldn't go there..... but....

Sony's from Japan....

Probably a conflict of interest for him.

Jeez..... That was in bad taste. D:

Really now? You're going there?
All the more reason to show that he supports Japan and this case was just "an ordeal he's happy to put behind him."

You do realise that, that was just a tasteless joke right?

Not an actual reason I was putting forward.

I saw the "tasteless" part but it's the "joke" part I'm having difficulty seeing. Aren't "jokes" supposed to be funny? And if they're not, then they're not "jokes?"

Well I laughed. Suppose that makes it funny. Which would make it a joke.

 

[JDKJ]

I wouldn't do it. I don't care about a cause -- I gots to get paid.

Then let us hope you never represent a cause that affects me.

That I'm not personally invested in a particular cause in no way stops me from providing the "zealous advocacy" (and the quotation marks are not for any emphasis, rather that's the actual text of the Professional Rules of Attorney Conduct) due all my clients -- provided that they're current on my fee statements. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more zealous advocate. Very much like a pit bull, I sink my teeth into the opposition's ass and it's Hell gettin' me let go until I get I want on my client's behalf.

Matter of fact, it's been my observation that personally investing in your client's cause can easily rob you of your objectivity.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

He should have donated money to Japan.

Probably, but he did say in the beginning all of the donation money that wasn't used in the case would be donated to the EFF.

 

[JDKJ]

I wouldn't do it. I don't care about a cause -- I gots to get paid.

Then let us hope you never represent a cause that affects me.

That I'm not personally invested in a particular cause in no way stops me from providing the "zealous advocacy" (and the quotation marks are not for any emphasis, rather that's the actual text of the Professional Rules of Attorney Conduct) due all my clients -- provided that they're current on my fee statements. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a more zealous advocate. Very much like a pit bull, I sink my teeth into the opposition's ass and it's Hell gettin' me let go until I get I want on my client's behalf.

Matter of fact, it's been my observation that personally investing in your client's cause can easily rob you of your objectivity.

Which is fair. This is a free (kinda) country, so you have nothing but your own will forcing you to help anyone for free. Well... barring witnessing a crime - in which case you have a legal duty, if safe, to assist. I sure do ramble a lot...

You'll find most causes that need help, are those with no money to spare, however. Wealthy people and wealthy causes can afford to help themselves. See: the racial plights of minorities and video game advocacy.

Not that I'm any better. Christ, I'd turn the other way and run very fast if I saw a murdering taking place. Screw taking on a long and tough legal battle for a cause someone else will fight for me.

Just because I'm not generally inclined to do pro bono publico work full time, doesn't entirely preclude me from my fair share of do-goodiness. I have donated my time at no charge to death penalties appeals and First and Second Amendment issues and the like. In fact, the ABA strongly urges -- but doesn't require -- that its members perform at least 40 hours of pro bono work every year. And many private attorneys do. It helps them to justify the exorbitant fees they charge and sleep at night.

And perhaps you're European (where many countries have so-called "Good Samaritan" laws), but in the United States, there is no legal requirement to render aid to others in distress. There's actually tort laws that suggest you shouldn't because they allow for the imposition of liability on those who rush to the aid of others and negligently cause them further harm (e.g., I crack your ribs while attempting to perform CPR in which I've never received any training).

 

[JDKJ]

That's weird. Where was this case? Alabama? Mississippi? Because in most civilized places, those facts wouldn't make you an accomplice.

Take Pennsylvania's accomplice statute, which says:

"A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if (1) with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he solicits such other person to commit it; or aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or (2) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity."

And then take the decision of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania v Rega where the Court, in interpreting the accomplice statute, states:

"An accomplice is one who actively and purposefully engages in criminal activity and is criminally responsible for the criminal actions of his/her co-conspirators which are committed in furtherance of the criminal endeavor.

Accordingly, two prongs must be satisfied for a person to be labeled an accomplice. First, there must be evidence that the person intended to aid or promote the underlying offense. Second, there must be evidence that the person actively participated in the crime by soliciting, aiding, or agreeing to aid the principal.

Further, a person cannot be an accomplice simply based on evidence that he knew about the crime or was present at the crime scene. There must be some additional evidence that the person intended to aid in the commission of the underlying crime, and then aided or attempted to aid."

I'm inclined to conclude that -- as morally wrong as it may sound -- if you're in Pennsylvania and you observe a crime being committed, feel free to kick back in a La-Z-Boy with some popcorn and a cold beverage and watch the whole crime unfold. Under Pennsylvania law, you can't be accused of being an accomplice. Just an opportunistic, callous, uncaring, voyeuristic asshole. But being all that ain't illegal. But I can't claim to know what less civilized places would do. I try to stay as far away as possible from Alabama and Mississippi and all them kinda places.