The Long Reach Of The Law 10
Anonymous Coward writes "Think legal jurisdictions mean anything? Apparently not if it involves copying DVDs. Matthew Pavlovich, who isn't a resident of California, has just had an Appellate Court decision go against him in that state -- he is exposed to prosecution.
Read all about it..."
What about outside America? (Score:2, Interesting)
This cannot go on like this indefinately... can it?
Re:What about outside America? (Score:2)
Re:What about outside America? (Score:1)
Anyway thanks for the links.
This will continue. (Score:1)
Federal issue, not state's (Score:1)
Re:Federal issue, not state's (Score:2)
This is clearly an interstate law enforcement issue, which is solely the role of the federal government.
Um.. no, it isn't. The "federal" goverment regulates interstate commerce, patents, and a very few other things. (Though they have this rather nasty tendency to shove a number of things under "interstate commerce", or to tax the states to force them to do their bidding.)
Let's read the eleventh amendment [loc.gov] to The Constitution of the United States [loc.gov].
Also, let's read the second clause of the second section of the fourth article of The Constitution of the United States [loc.gov].
Note that he must flee from justice, and be found in another state. I would therefore construe, that if found in another state without fleeing, the jurisdiction did not extend.
Well, IANAL, but I'd say that the law cannot possibly do anything at all to him.
suppose I pollute the Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona within levels granted by a state permit.
A caveat, but one of supreme importance. The states do not permit anything. They just happen to be able to make it illegal. The Declaration of Independence [loc.gov], and the ninth and tenth ammendments [loc.gov] make this abundantly clear.
Re:Federal issue, not state's (Score:1)
Re:Federal issue, not state's (Score:2)
You clearly are NAL. The eleventh amendment simply prevents me from suing the state of California in a federal court. I must sue the State of California in a state court.
But which state court? In a non-califonian court, the constitution gives jurisdiction to the US Government, which is not allowed here. So, it would have to be a Californian court. But why would a court allow a foreigner to sue them. Would not that be akin to letting a Freedonian sue the US in US courts?
Further, the alleged violation of a California trade secrets law (which is what he's charged with) does fall under interstate commerce when the alleged action takes place outside the state.
Whoa! So is one state makes a law, the US Goverment has to enforce it outside the state? That does not seem right.
No, it's not abuntantly clear.
Yes, it is. The ninth and tenth amendments give all rights to people (or the state) not given to the government. It would take a state constitution to give all the rights to the state, and I do not believe that it does. Thus, the rights all belong to the people unless made illegal. The Declaration of Independence, refers to inalienable rights. The adjective is extremely important. Noone has rights. Everyone can do what they want, unless it encumbers someone else, in which case laws may be made.