gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: softwarefreedom.org and busybox fellows 'win' DEFAULT JUDGMENT


From: Rjack
Subject: Re: softwarefreedom.org and busybox fellows 'win' DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:02:21 -0500
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)

Rahul Dhesi wrote:

Rjack <address@hidden> writes:
So this explains why you incessantly post your legal analyses to Usenet
but never in an amicus brief -- presumably the judge would impose some
sanctions on you for wasting the time of the court with irrelevant
out-of-context quotes. Alas, Usenet doesn't provide its readers with the
ability to impose such sanctions on you.

>> Since the Busybox default judgment didn't occur on a writ of error or
appeal, I don't see how the quoted fragment applies. <<

Rahul, Rahul read and believe before you make a complete jackass
of yourself:

***************************************************************
"Subject matter jurisdiction, then, is an Art. III, as well as a
statutory, requirement; it functions as a restriction on federal
power, and contributes to the characterization of the federal
sovereign. Certain legal consequences directly follow from this. For
example, no action of the parties can confer subject matter
jurisdiction upon a federal court. Thus, the consent of the parties is
irrelevant, California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109 (1972), principles of
estoppel do not apply, American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 341 U. S.
6, 341 U. S. 17-18 (1951), and a party does not waive the requirement
by failing to challenge jurisdiction early in the proceedings.
Similarly, a court, including an appellate court, will raise lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on its own motion.

'[T]he rule, springing from the nature and limits of the judicial
power of the United States, is inflexible and without exception, which
requires this court, of its own motion, to deny its jurisdiction and,
in the exercise of its appellate power, that of all other courts of
the United States, in all cases where such jurisdiction does not
affirmatively appear in the record'

Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 111 U. S. 382
(1884). [Footnote 9]"; Ins. Co. of Ireland v. Compagnie Des Bauxites,
456 U.S. 694 (1982).
******************************************************************

Read, read, read Rahul : ". . . that of all other courts of
the United States, in all cases where such jurisdiction does not
affirmatively appear in the record".

Now, trot off to your local law library and read about "stare decisis"
before firing up your mouth and your putdown machine.

>> Alas, Usenet doesn't provide its readers with the ability to impose
such sanctions on you. <<

Allowing morons like you to impose sanctions is really scary.
Get a life Rahul.

Sincerely,
Rjack :)

            Have a nice Rahul day!
      _                         _
     |_|                       |_|
     | |         /^^^\         | |
    _| |_      (| "o" |)      _| |_
  _| | | | _    (_---_)    _ | | | |_
 | | | | |' |    _| |_    | `| | | | |
 |          |   /     \   |          |
  \        /  / /(. .)\ \  \        /
    \    /  / /  | . |  \ \  \    /
      \  \/ /    ||Y||    \ \/  /
       \__/      || ||      \__/
                 () ()
                 || ||
                ooO Ooo


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]