Posted on

Another question to the lawyers

I was reading Punzi’s blog and I noticed he had the lawyers oath posted on the side:

The Lawyer’s Oath

I, having been permitted to continue in the practice of law in the Philippines, do solemnly swear that I recognize the supreme authority of the Republic of the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.

There’s something that I couldn’t get my head around.

Read More

Posted on

Question Mr. Attorney

Ok for all the lawyers out there (Punzi, anyone?), I just wanted to get your opinions on this for the heck of it. It’s no biggie really, just an article I read a couple of days ago which got my attention.

This is the scenario: A molester, is going to court because of evidence a thief sent the police (anonymously). This all happened when the thief had opened a memory card which was part of the “goods” he had stolen from the molester – who was just a “victim” at the time. The thief was apprehended from an unrelated case, but said he was the one who gave them the molester – in case you were wondering.

Now the question is: is that evidence admissible in the court?

The story was popular because… aside from the fact that people were painting the theif as a hero (claiming there is honor among thieves as he chose the moral high road in sending the evidence at the risk of being caught), there was also much hoo-haw over the legality of how the evidence was “procured.”

Read More

Posted on

Apple wins

Apple

It seems that Apple has been granted the right to search and destroy the sources of ThinkSecret’s information… and correct me if I’m wrong, but the case against ThinkSecret itself is different – Apple filed a separate suit against ThinkSecret alleging that they induced Apple employees to steal trade secrets. Dunno about you, but to me, thats just a convenient, valid legal excuse to sue the publisher.

Two of my favorite “read lines” with regards to the whole Apple charade.

There’s another old saying in my profession: The mission of journalists is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

A letter to Steve Jobs by Mike Langberg of San Jose Mercury News.

and…

Saying that no one has the right to publish information that could have been provided only by someone breaking the law, judge James Kleinberg ruled that online reporters for Apple Insider and PowerPage must reveal their sources.

via Linuxwrangler Read More