Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Swartz unable to appeal for funds? | 559 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Swartz unable to appeal for funds?

Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 04:13 PM EST

If a lawyer mentions something is risky, and
you are not a lawyer and have no experience,
do not contradict. Not on Groklaw. Not
unless you have a url of proof, meaning another
lawyer or a statute or a case, at a bare
minimum.

Why? You can influence others and they may
end up in the soup.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Swartz unable to appeal for funds?

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 19 2013 @ 10:03 PM EST

Every state has its laws regarding the solicitation of funds. Most counties,

townships, villages, boroughs, and cities have their own additional
requirements, and legal quirks.

I suspect that the reference was to the fusion of local (Boston or Mass) law
with Florida law, and interstate commerce legislation.

Given what the prosecutor was pushing for, an additional charge or two for
violation of a soliciting statute would be a slam duck -- and much easier to
win in the courtroom.

(Hmm, my spell checker tried to change 'additional' to
'irrational'.)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )