I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Update on state court suit against "Expelled"

The On the Cover Songs blog reports that the defendants have moved for dismissal of the complaint in the state-court suit against "Expelled." The oral hearing on the motion is scheduled for June 9. The plaintiffs in the state court suit are EMI Records and Capitol Records, not Yoko Ono et al.. As I noted before, the name of the court, Supreme Court of the State of New York, is a misnomer -- this is a trial court of original jurisdiction.

The case documents show that no temporary restraining order was issued in state court (the federal-court TRO has now been lifted). Actually, because the US Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over copyrights and interstate commerce, I question the authority of a state court to take any kind of action to enforce a copyright, including any action that applies just to a state.

Unlike in federal courts, a PACER account is not needed to view at least some of the case documents in this state court (some federal court decisions can be viewed without PACER if the court chooses to post them). I don't see the reason for the following rule: "Except in matrimonial cases, . . . .judgments are not entered by the County Clerk until an attorney for a party to the case appears at the Judgment Clerk's desk (Rm. 141B at 60 Centre Street) and requests entry."

Labels:

2 Comments:

Blogger Peter White said...

You are sadly mistaken about scientific law and theory. There is no hierarchy from theory to law in science. As an example look at Newton's laws of motion. They explain the motion of objects as small as golf balls or as large as planets and stars. They don't explain all of it - like the orbit of Mercury. Einstein's theory gives us the explanations we need for that.
So here we have a scientific law that needs a theory to make up for an inadequacy in it.
Laws in science are not better than theories. They tend to be simpler and fit nicely into one formula. The difference is a matter of convenience, not value.

Friday, June 06, 2008 3:10:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Peter, doesn't your comment belong under another post, "Evolution and Fatheaded Ed Brayton. Again."? Are you going to move it there, or should I?

Friday, June 06, 2008 4:55:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home