Posted on 02/25/2016 3:19:09 PM PST by Swordmaker
“No wonder you waffle on everything. You are completely clueless on the meaning of every English word we use in normal discourse.”
I never waffle. Unless I have thought of yet another reason you are wrong.
“My theory about why they may have kept this iPhone is to use the GPS for their escape or for directions to their next attack. That doesn’t mean it has anything probative on it. I think Farook was comfortable using it for the turn-by-turn voice directions.
Yeah, what possible value would a GPS tracking system with possibly multiple points and addresses, entered by an ISIS member? Good thing Apple is defending us.
You just fascinate me.
Oh GOOD GRIEF! You just proved my point about not knowing the meanings of words in spades!
Jess, you are welcome to have your own misguided opinions, as delusional as the may be, but you are NOT entitled to your own definitions of words or of the law. . . or of reality.
Pay attention: The Court Order was written under a 1789 LAW called the "All Writs Act". It has NOTHING to do with anything that precedes a Court Order. Nothing.
Apple knew NOTHING about this application to the COURT for the order and never "indicated a willingness to comply." Neither does a Court Order or a writ have anything to do with a respondent's willingness to comply. In fact, a Court Order is usually issued because one or more parties was NOT willing to comply. SHEESH!
Where did you ever get THAT cockamamie idea? If the parties are willing to comply, there's usually no reason for a judge to even be involved! That's what contracts are for.
What you called a "paste-up", that you claim I did myself, is a verbatim quotation of the Court Order, and it is not a menu of choices. It is specifications of what Apple MUST do, unless they get the concurrence of the government to do something different. Again, you run into a mis-understanding of plain English words in a legal document. There was no "could" anywhere in there and no CHOICE. It was a compelling from the court of jurisdiction to do what was explicitly spelled out under threat of consequences that could be brought to bear by a FEDERAL COURT. What part of that makes you think it was a request to Apple to "offer" to do it?
I am an ex-CEO who is quite skilled at reading contracts and other legal documents. I am NOT misreading this Court Order. I know exactly how to read contracts, clauses, sub-ordinate clauses, and in what order they have importance. I still have an attorney on my payroll.Your very amusing lecture on Court Orders had him rolling his eyes and almost laughing out loud, especially about the "writs" preceding a Court Order, and your hilarious claim that a writ is for "after the respondent indicates a willingness to comply." He said he's NOT gonna run that one past the next judge he appears before.
I also sat on the bench for a year as the foreman of our county's Criminal Grand Jury. . . and essentially acted as a Judge. I learned a lot about judicial procedure in that year. We were even asked to sit as a petit jury while the District Attorney presented an entire first degree murder case before us, trying the case as it would be tried before an actual petit jury, to see if they had a case beyond a reasonable doubt. He had me sit as the actual Trial Court judge in the case, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, objections, etc. If I was in doubt about something, I had a real judge on call to ask questions to settle my doubt. Another Assistant DA acted as an aggressive defense attorney. It lasted almost three-weeks. We told the DA they didn't have a case beyond a reasonable doubt, but I offered him an alternative theory of the crime to pursue which five years later resulted in a conviction. Turned out my theory was right on the money in every detail.
Posse? No posse. I am merely pinging the people who have tried to tell you the truth in this thread which you have let slide off your back like you were made of teflon. I am just keeping them up-to-date on your latest declarations. Most of them find your arguments pathetic.
There's nothing wrong in my posts that I need to read them again, only with your reading comprehension and understanding of plain English.
Is English your second language, "Sparky"?
“Oh GOOD GRIEF! You just proved my point about not knowing the meanings of words in spades!”
I have never seen a Court Order (or a writ) that gives a company a menu of choices to choose from and is open to negotiating remedies that even include the court paying for one of said remedies. None, of course, that is binding in any logical way enough to be used as precedent in any case. I doubt that you have ever seen a writ in your life.
But thanks for the kind words and the book length novella of your life, which I really could care less about, but I am sure it must have some bearing on this particular writ in your fevered mind. I will doubtless be more impressed if I find anything in your ramblings that are of interest and accidentally somehow germane to what I have written.
Take a pill. Gather your posse and wring your hands. Do whatever it is you boys do when you get so exercised by the thought of having to preserve the Constitution in it’s original form, with it’s original intent, because of the glorious thoughts that have been germinated in that brilliant cabal. Consult with Rex. He seemed to have some ideas on how to relax. Shhhh....sleep. Sleep. Goodnight, dear boy.
“Pay attention: The Court Order was written under a 1789 LAW called the “All Writs Act”. It has NOTHING to do with anything that precedes a Court Order. Nothing.”
You keep writing that and it is not entirely true:
The All Writs Act is a United States federal statute, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which authorizes the United States federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.
The act in its original form was part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The current form of the act was first passed in 1911 and the act has been amended several times since then. One case in which the act’s application drew public attention was on October 31, 2014, by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York’s Southern District to compel an unnamed smartphone manufacturer to bypass the lock screen of a smartphone allegedly involved in a credit card fraud.
If your intention is to make it seem even more archaic than it actually is...you have failed again. Sorry, old sock. It really is noble what you are doing, trying to attack the Constitution, I think you may not be the right fellow to get it done though. Keep working with your posse, though, something might come of it yet.
Nice try. Jess. But even Alan Dershowitz gets one wrong from time to time. He has so many facts wrong here that his opinion has to be taken with a block of Rock Salt.
Should it have been worked out between Apple and the government? First of all, Apple is NOT the ones who started this or made it public! The FBI started all of this because they WANTED a public circus with a huge public outcry so they could do an end run around Congress's CALEA law which prohibited Law Enforcement from forcing the decryption of personally encrypted mobile devices. This was orchestrated.
This was the PERFECT CASE for that purpose. Dead defendant, locked phone, Terrorist attack. Public uproar over more potential attacks. So, even though Apple IS helping the FBI, they change the AppleID (which would have gotten the data off the iPhone) within 24 hours of its seizure, then while Apple is still cooperating with the authorities, the FBI surreptitiously goes to court and gets a COURT ORDER to compel Apple to build a backdoor into all iPhones, while SIMULTANEOUSLY issuing a PRESS RELEASE claiming that Apple had REFUSED to help the FBI in getting data off the Terrorists iPhone. FALSE on its face.
The FBI wanted huge public outcry, not because they wanted THIS phone unlocked, but because they want to be able to unlock ALL iPhones that have uncrackable encryption. Congress refused to pass a law requiring the Obama administration backed, so they need the people to get behind a COURT ORDERED means to LEGISLATE it, despite it already being aainst the law for law enforcement to decrypt personal instigated encryption on mobile devices as passed by Congress in CALEA. They WANT a public out rage! This would do it.
The Director of the FBI Tweets the same thing, that Apple is refusing to help get data off the terrorists' iPhone. THIS WAS A DELIBERATE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN! Feed the outrage!
Get the public to DEMAND that the courts strip them of their privacy rights. . . and you are walking in lock step right into the metaphorical ovens. "yessah massah, yessah, massah," as you shuffle in.
The claim that Apple was blocking the Terrorist investigation hit the news big time, exactly as the FBI intended.
Apple was served with the Court Order AFTER they heard about it on the news and were being called by the News Media for comment. Again, an intended onslaught from the propagandists in the Obama administration.
Apple was handed a SHAT Sandwich with the government ordering Apple to essentially hack their own un-hackable iPhone system. They had to respond.
Dershowitz refers to the iPhone being owned by "the company" when it is owned by the County of San Bernardino, a public governmental entity, not a company. Again, showing that Dershowitz doesn't really know all the history or ramifications of this case.
Dershowitz may think it's a mistake, but there are Constitutional lawyers of equal standing who disagree.
“Nice try. Jess. But even Alan Dershowitz gets one wrong from time to time. He has so many facts wrong here that his opinion has to be taken with a block of Rock Salt.”
Oh, please. Let me guess. You taught him everything he knows?
“Should it have been worked out between Apple and the government? First of all, Apple is NOT the ones who started this or made it public!”
Non sequiter. Doesn’t matter who did what. They should have worked it out and tried to catch these murdering mothertruckers. I’m done with you, you moron.
OH! You finally looked it up. You're a bit late, but the later versions of the "All Writs Act" has essentially remained identical to the 1789, just amended to modernize the language. So, now you are picking nits trying to resurrect your reputation. Not gonna work. Do you see ANYTHING there that applies to your ignorant earlier lecture about "writs coming before court orders"? You already nuked that in your previous posts, making mincemeat out of your claims to know anything at all about interpreting legal documents and anything at ALL about court orders.
I am NOT trying to attack the Constitution, idiot. I am a supporting the Constitution. This is NOT a constitutional question if you are hanging every thing only on the 4th Amendment. It IS about the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 13th Amendments.
It is also about the division of powers and the overreach of the judicial and the Executive branch. You keep ignoring that. There is a long history to this dispute and it is one involving a campaign involving Obama and his trying to seize more power. You ignore a meeting Obama had over the Thanksgiving weekend with the departments of Homeland Security about HOW TO GET AROUND Congress' unwillingness to require backdoors in mobile encryption which the White House had agreed to back off on. . . and Obama's orders to attack it through the courts! This is that attack. WAKE UP!
Please be so kind as to remove me from this mailing list, thanks very very much! THANK YOU!
Piss off.
Frustrated dudes?
Consider Orin Kerr’s summary at Volokh Conspiracy:
“This case is like a crazy-hard law school exam hypothetical in which a professor gives students an unanswerable problem just to see how they do. “
Look, Asshat. You don't do sarcasm very well either. It DOES matter who started this PUBLIC mess and WHY. You can claim it doesn't but the MOTIVE is very important to the future of this country. You can ignore what the LIBERALS are up to, but I refuse to get in lock-step with the know nothings like YOU who are willing to throw our hard won liberties and rights away for some very temporary illusory appearance of security.
Non sequiter. (sic) Doesn't matter who did what. They should have worked it out and tried to catch these murdering mothertruckers. I’m done with you, you moron.
No, jess, it is NOT a non sequitur. Just in case it has escaped your attention, "these murdering mothertruckers" are already DEAD. They are not running anywhere. Catching them is as easy as looking in the morgue, or digging them up.
The moron here, is you. You are the one who keeps coming up with moronic claims such as "writs come before Court Orders" and the court order was merely an means to allow Apple to "offer to help". Now THAT is moronic.
I did, Faith. Are you still getting some???? Oh, wait. It's adding you automatically because of auto-fill. Sorry. Let me see if I can override that! RATS!
Found it. It was like spell check. I would paste the list I had removed you from, but the auto-fill though I was forgetting you, and put you back in. . . but it didn't show up on the itty box on the To: field. My apologies.
To err is human, to really foul up requires the help of a computer.
Keep up the good work bro.
Great — thanks again very much. Appreciated
NEVER say "NEVER"
There are NO absolutes.
Maybe in your mind.. but NOT in reality.
Is that akin to the "NEVER" that Apple OS X will get a true computer virus? We are now going on 18 years since OS X Server was released and 15 years for OS X client and there have been ZERO true computer viruses for the Mac OS X platform?
Yes, OS X has had some trojan horse programs, but those are not, by definition computer viruses, because they require the participation of the user, who must download, install, and run them.
There have been a total of SEVEN computer virus candidates for Mac OS X in the last 18 years. Every single one of them has failed to successfully replicate itself, transmit itself, and then infect any Macs. That's getting pretty damn close to NEVER. . . in reality.
Perhaps you might consider that I know more about this than do you?
“Frustrated dudes?”
Not me, Mrs. Smith. But thanks for asking.
This has grown tiresome, though.
I’m done.
Look.. so you want to make a point that you're a KNOW it ALL and I need to be schooled by you.
My source of information and LONG TIME MENTOR, that has emphatically reminded me MANY times over the past 15 years, that there are NO ABSOLUTES, was previously a Lucent Technology emergency response engineer for Networks and digital security for several years servicing America's major corporations.
Currently he is a high level security expert for the SEC in Wash DC and holds a top secret clearance. He is HIGHLY knowledge when it comes to encryption, networks, and digital security.
He is where I got the "NEVER say NEVER" phrase because of what he has witnessed over the years, much of which is not always made public.
I myself, semi-retired, still work for a nationwide Financial Broker-Dealer and know the facts of traditional security.
I can tell you that I have run across many people like yourself who always want to make a case for "how THEY KNOW and you do not."
I refer to it as the "rightness disease" because they firmly believe they're always right. I'll excuse your naivete. You keep telling yourself and anyone else who will believe it that NO ONE will EVER, EVER crack an Apple iPhone. As for me... I'll subscribe to reality - The difficult is done at once, the impossible takes a little longer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.