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

[Rahul Dhesi]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

[ various things ]

Rjack, you again? Didn't the CAFC just recently declare you null and void?

Anyway, regarding your claim that in the Second Circuit, an action for
coypright requires registration of any United States work, somebody
would have to first argue that Busybox is a United States work requiring
registration. By not appearing, the defendant almost certainly waived
this argument.

As for your clever Supreme Court quote:

  The Ninth Circuit has denominated this practice–which it characterizes
  as “assuming” jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits–the
  “doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction.” . . .

  On every writ of error or appeal, the first and fundamental question is
  that of jurisdiction, first, of this court, and then of the court from
  which the record comes. This question the court is bound to ask and
  answer for itself, even when not otherwise suggested, and without
  respect to the relation of the parties to it.

I added back the reference to the “doctrine of hypothetical
jurisdiction” and also the clause "on every writ of error or appeal",
both of which provide the context that you had omitted.

Since the Busybox default judgment didn't occur on a writ of error or
appeal, I don't see how the quoted fragment applies. And also, this
quote addresses only the “doctrine of hypothetical jurisdiction”, which
was not used in the Busybox case. So your quote is entirely irrelevant.

Look it up below.

  http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-643.ZO.html

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.
-- 
Rahul
http://rahul.rahul.net/