Jones was informed of the post by Graham and filed suit in December 2009 and a default judgement was entered in the case in August 2010.  The complaint alleges Defamation (Count 1), Libel Per Se (Count 2), False Light (Count 3), Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count 4),

The problem was that Kentucky attorney Eric Deters filed suit against Los Angeles-based Dirty World Entertainment Recordings which the complaint and judgment said operates TheDirt.com.  The website that posted the information was TheDirtY.com, owned by Scottsdale-based Dirty World LLC.  Notice the "Y" on the end of the website.  Apparently Jones' attorney Eric Deters didn't notice the difference. Neither did U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman and awarded $1 million in compensatory damages and $10 million in punitive damages.

TheDirty.com's owners did not respond to the suit because they weren't served and consequently have no legal knowledge of the suit.  Interestingly, Politico states that "Kentucky attorney Eric Deters, who is representing Jones, said it was irrelevant that the incorrect corporation, website and physical address were listed on the complaint and judgment."  Now, if that statement is true, it opens an entirely new avenue to sue people - don't sue the people you want, sue someone else, get a default judgement and then say "it is irrelevant."  Obviously, it is completely relevant that you serve the correct person so that they have notice of the suit and can respond.  Anything else is a travesty of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the concept of notice.

TheDirt.com is now asking whether they should counter-sue Sarah Jones for libel or start a fundraiser.

TheDirtY.com is now asking AP for an apology and retraction since AP reported that the judgement was against TheDirtY.com when simple reporting by AP would have shown that it was against TheDirt.com.  Likewise Cincinatti.com reported the same.  So far no retractions or apologies have come to light.

U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman and attorney Eric Deters should be embarrassed to have let a farce get so far.  TheDirty.com should be embarrassed to have posted that.

For the full story see: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082910dntexcongress.2c049bb.html

The police anywhere must be above reproach incidents like this impact individual defendants and the trust that police officers have to rely upon.  The North Carolina SBI should be embarrassed and must take steps to immediately clean up the mess.  Power corrupts.  North Carolina SBI Officers that took part in this should be charged and in jail themselves.  Behavior such as this is completely unacceptable.  Read the full story.

In a somewhat related story, the science of DNA test statistics has come under scrutiny.  In part, the article states:

"The DNA analyst who testified in Smith's trial said the chances of the DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were 1 in 95,000. But both the prosecution and the analyst's supervisor said the odds were more like 1 in 47. A later review of the evidence suggested that the chances of the second person's DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were closer to 1 in 13, while a different statistical method said the chance of seeing this evidence if the DNA came from Jackson is only twice that of the chance of seeing it if it came from someone else."

So if a  person buys a computer on January 1st for $399, paper and ink and printer for more than $202 on December 31st of that year from the same person or business (flea market, Bill's Computer Condo, Office Depot) for their office, they are required to file IRS Form 1099.  Forgot about it over the course of the year?  Too bad, you are breaking the law.

If a business or individual pays you more than $600 in a YEAR to clean their offices, they'll be required to 1099 you.  Buy more than $600 in goods from the grocery store in a year for your business?  Form 1099.  Think about it, do you buy bottles of water or soda or snacks to give out to clients or employees?

Are you a freelance writer or designer?  A Doctor or lawyer?  Buy a a 3G iPad?  You will be required to send a 1099 to Apple (all the 3Gs are over $600).  But a Wifi iPad and some songs and apps from Apple iTunes/App Store?  Form 1099.  Realtor?  Your MLS fee's over $600?  1099.  Fish tank in your orthodontic office (our's does)?  1099 to the maintenance company.  Buy a new desk and chair?  1099.  How many people and companies do you have to track?  Will you just consolidate to a few large ones to avoid the paperwork?  So long to a bunch of small businesses.

Buy Starbucks a few times a week for an employee as a reward?  That is about $650 per year if you buy it every other day.  You will have to send Starbucks a 1099.  If you are paying by credit card, it can be - and will be - tracked.

This isn't just anti-business.  It is anti-freedom.  No one who wants to live in a free country wants all their transactions reported to the Federal Government - or to anyone.  People say "But I have nothing to hide, so what is the big deal?"  Okay, we'll be over to install a camera in your bedroom - if you aren't a pedophile, you have nothing to hide, right?  I'd also like copies of your bank accounts and credit card statements.  This is not about "I have nothing to hide," it is about freedom.  Even ignoring how outrageous this concept is and the Constitutionality of it, the fact that in a free country anyone would put up with transaction monitoring at all, let alone this intrusively says a lot about the goals of the people who are advocating it.  It is about control and power over you and the country.  Sure, it starts out as for a "good cause"(tm), but ends up consolidating power and control in a small group of people who want nothing more than the power of life and death over every aspect of the country.

The next will be:  "this is a tremendous burden on people and businesses, so we will just have the credit card companies automatically add up the totals for you and submit them to the IRS electronically.  And as long as we are doing that, why not track everything since those purchases under $600 per year 'lost revenue.'"

It is totalitarianism, all in the name of a "good cause."  It turns us into a nation of snitches - you better file your 1099 because the person on the other end of the transaction will be doing so.  There was a lot of complaining about the Patriot Act monitoring people, but this makes the Patriot Act look like a puddle next to the Pacific.

Here is the language, amendments are in italics and highlighted.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 61 > Subchapter A > PART III > Subpart B > § 6041. Information at source

(a) Payments of $600 or more

All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, amounts in consideration for property, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other gross proceeds, fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income (other than payments to which section 6042 (a)(1), 6044 (a)(1), 6047 (e), 6049 (a), or 6050N (a) applies, and other than payments with respect to which a statement is required under the authority of section 6042 (a)(2), 6044 (a)(2), or 6045), of $600 or more in any taxable year, or, in the case of such payments made by the United States, the officers or employees of the United States having information as to such payments and required to make returns in regard thereto by the regulations hereinafter provided for, shall render a true and accurate return to the Secretary, under such regulations and in such form and manner and to such extent as may be prescribed by the Secretary, setting forth the amount of such gross proceeds, gains, profits, and income, and the name and address of the recipient of such payment.

...

(h) Application to Corporations.

Notwithstanding any regulation prescribed by the Secretary before the date of the enactment of this subsection, for purposes of this section the term `person' includes any corporation that is not an organization exempt from tax under section 501(a).

(i) Regulations.

The Secretary may prescribe such regulations and other guidance as may be appropriate or necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, including rules to prevent duplicative reporting of transactions.

A standing military force with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.  James Madison

While most people would be charged with assault and battery, one wonders how U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge will get off.

And the Washington Post calls this a "hug"!  Now, if the Washington Post wanted to have any journalistic integrity, they would call it what it is instead of bending over backwards to try and protect this thug.  The Washington Post long ago lost any ability to be independent and is stuck in the "protect those in power" at any cost mindset.  A disgrace to a paper that in the past had some journalists working there instead of PR flacks.

What are the people of North Carolina thinking electing scum like Bob Etheridge to Congress?

Update:  Bob Etheridge has now issued a statement:

Washington, DC, Jun 14 - U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-Lillington) released the following statement on the viral video which appeared on the internet today: “I have seen the video posted on several blogs.  I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved.  Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina, I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become, this does not justify a poor response.  I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.” Rep. Bob Etheridge (NC-02)

"I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse."  Rep Etheridge, does "civil public discourse" include attacking people?  Etheridge is a joke.

See also http://www.breitbart.tv/congressman-assaults-student-on-washington-sidewalk/

As if it makes it all okay, the Red Cross says it is not "training the Taliban in surgical skills; the focus [is] on stabilizing those injured."   Stabilizing injured terrorists makes it okay for the Red Cross - stabilizing terrorists so they can then come back and attack again.

When the Red Cross chooses to support individuals that intentionally try to kill innocent people, they are no longer neutral, the Red Cross has picked a side, the side of killers.

What a wonderful mission the Red Cross has undertaken, it is sick to help people who are intentionally out to kill innocent civilians. No one who values freedom should send any financial support to a corrupt organization like the Red Cross that supports a terrorist organization bent on violence and destroying the liberty of free people through terror.

So as long as ANYONE does not believe any "slang" is an "ethnic slur," according to Zubi, you can use it.  Free reign for the racists at the KKK, the anti-semites like Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson, and racists like Spike "handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom" Lee (on Clarence Thomas).

It is interesting that the racists at Zubi Advertising who created are advocating criminal behavior on the part of illegal aliens.  What other crimes do the racists at Zubi Advertising support?

One has to apply the new standards of racism equally now.

Carol needs to remember that in September 1998 Google was a "small company" while Yahoo was about 4 years old.

The offer would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity” or “in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.”  Likewise 18 USC 595 prohibits a federal official from interfering with the nomination or election for office and Section 18 USC 211 says that you can't accept anything of value in return for hiring somebody in the Federal government.

Either the Democrat candidate for the Senate has lied multiple times or a felony has taken place.  One would think that the media would care to investigate and a Special Prosecutor should be appointed.

Axelrod replied to CNN's King that “If such things happened they would constitute a serious breach of the law, and when the allegations were looked into there is no evidence of such a thing."  And when Ted Bundy was asked to look in the killings of which he was accused, he found that there was no evidence that he had been involved.  Thankfully other people investigated Bundy.  We don't give the people accused of a crime the responsibility and authority to investigate the allegations themselves.  Hence the Special Prosecutor.

For reference:

Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other benefit for political
activity

      Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
    position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
    provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
    Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
    benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
    political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
    candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
    special election to any political office, or in connection with any
    primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
    candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
    title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

                                AMENDMENTS
      1994 - Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for
    "fined not more than $10,000".
      1976 - Pub. L. 94-453 substituted $10,000 for $1,000 maximum
    allowable fine.
      1972 - Pub. L. 92-225 struck out "work," after "position,",
    inserted "contract, appointment," after "compensation," and "or any
    special consideration in obtaining any such benefit," after "Act of
    Congress,", and substituted "in connection with any general or
    special election to any political office, or in connection with any
    primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
    candidates for any political office" for "in any election".

                     EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1972 AMENDMENT
      Amendment by Pub. L. 92-225 effective Dec. 31, 1971, or sixty
    days after date of enactment [Feb. 7, 1972], whichever is later,
    see section 408 of Pub. L. 92-225, set out as an Effective Date
    note under section 431 of Title 2, The Congress.