the court won’t have proceeded with the case if they don’t think the person named in the case has been served,

Fun fact, the case did not proceed they’re specifically asking for it to.

so the fact that he didn’t turn up to court means he must have been served otherwise they wouldn’t have had the trial yet.

No, the date proceeds unless the court says otherwise even if it’s simply to show up and say they don’t have service yet.

Y’all really don’t have any civil court experience do you?

Difficult, yes. Stupid, indeed. How the legal system works? Also true.

A summons still has to be served in civil court meaning actually made aware generally by a hand to hand transfer. There is no mention of that happening and court dates proceed regardless of actual service unless the court moves out preemptively or the other party motions to move it forward to affect service.

So the question is do you know the difference between service and summons and the interplay between them.

Not really, they’re asking for default without actually serving the person and that just isn’t how our justice system works.

Don’t let your car kill other people, if your expensive deathtrap kills you I feel bad but I can’t say it’s unexpected.

That may be but they can still vote and if that’s what gets them activated then go for it. This “right way” shit has got to stop.

Yes you do.

I can’t find a reference to that but China did 17 minutes in January this year. I think you’re confusing the announcement that they increased power by 17x while maintaining plasma.

This test was 20 minutes at a higher power setting without being incredibly destructive, that’s their milestone.

That. Isn’t. How. Laws. Work.

https://youtu.be/Otbml6WIQPo?si=e3HsTMcepbSF-Pv2

Start there and work your way up I guess.

The platform isn’t creating revenue, the traffic and data collection do however create lots and lots of revenue so it really just depends on how you want to parse out their financial situation.

Because they aren’t private.

Name alone is not in itself pii but membership specifically is not private unless it’s in their privacy policy.

Because that’s not how the law works bud.

Awesome, point to one that says membership rolls are protected. You can’t find a law and you can’t be original, why am I not surprised.

It started they aren’t private.

It’s not illegal guy.

I have. You want me to have you a law that tells you what you can do, those don’t exist at all. No law says what you can do. The fact you can’t find a single law that states it is illegal is the best evidence that it is not in fact illegal. Surely if it’s so correct you are beyond reproach that we must simply take it on your word you could easily provide evidence to back your position… You haven’t because you can’t.

Grow up.

There’s not it establishes they are not protected and are in fact releasable.

Laws don’t tell you what you can do they tell you what you can’t do. Point to a law that says you cannot release membership rolls, you won’t find one and the fact you still haven’t says oh so much.

Citing a source? No, that’s one more step then you’ve done huh? Let’s see your citation perry Mason.

Unless it’s explicitly exempted in policy, companies are held to their own privacy policy federally. You should actually read what I write rom.

We know they can be released because of the unamerican acts commission specifically requesting membership rolls and the subsequent supreme court case saying they can be disclosed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/disclosure-of-membership-lists

There are federal rules of disclosure as to 501c3 and charitable organizations but pornhub and in fact most businesses are not 501c3 nor charitable.

Is not strange at all you’re adding me to prove a negative that can’t be proven.

We just went over that again for the third time no you can’t. Your name and membership is not pii.

Awesome point to one that allow l makes it unlawful federally.

Ed: you’ll notice I didn’t say they would, nor that they could just that it isn’t federally illegal to do.

Yet you can provide it, weird huh. Rule of acquisition #237 of they can’t point to a law, there is no law. Do better rom.

You cannot publish personally-identifiable information about your customers.

We already went over this, protected information is unsurprisingly protected. Your name and membership is not pii in most cases unless protected by their privacy policy.

They absolutely can if it isn’t included in the policy, there is no federal law protecting membership rolls. None.

Laws prevent they do not allow, you’re asking for something you know doesn’t exist to avoid having to admit you can’t find a single law that says it is illegal dispite arguing at length that it is.

Yeah, he signed a 44 billion dollar deal as a joke, then he tried to get out of it when he said he didn’t mean it.

signed a 44 billion dollar deal

he tried to get out of it when he said he didn’t mean it.

signed a 44 billion dollar deal

Then he got fined another 2 million dollars for sending the judges his dick pics after the judges wouldn’t let him back out.

Sex crimes, hilarious jokes huh?! Better hope he doesn’t upgrade to pranks and start raping people.

Then after the sale went through, he did that photo op where he brought a kitchen sink and a toilet to the twitter building.

Dad jokes are relevant why?

How is stating what happened defending him?

Signing a legally binding contract is not a joke… He did something stupid and tried to save face with his fanboys and idiots that go “man make funny joke worth more than several countries. Haha funny man make me face hurt.”

Like legit how do you think you aren’t defending him.

Bingo. You need a contract that says your membership/username is included in the privacy policy. Barring that they’re free to release membership rolls as they please they just can’t release protected information.

It’s why multiple emails, VPN and phony personas are so prevalent these days.

Point. To. A. Single. Law.

One. Uno. A singular law.