You must not have read the entire excerpt. Either that or you're not understanding it. Because the interpretation you have is wholly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Printable View
You must not have read the entire excerpt. Either that or you're not understanding it. Because the interpretation you have is wholly wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
It'd be one dimensional to think that anything they accomplish on behalf of their members - incidentally membership available to all within this very specific industry - won't have an effect upon those beyond their membership base as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Don't play word games just for sake of being difficult because in this case your semantics games are misrepresenting the intentions and actions of a noble organization with noble motives.
Well i just re-read it and i dont see how what im saying can be perceived as wrong..Quote:
Originally Posted by BDBionic
There is nothing in there that says members of any 'organization' are covered by any injunction, unless you are referring to the 'binding only upon the parties' part which is a moot point because the FSC has already said that they wont be naming every FSC member in the injunction.Quote:
F.R.C.P 65 (d) provides that injunctions and restraining orders shall be "binding only upon the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and upon those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." A TRO or preliminary injunction is binding only on those "who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise." Successors or assigns of persons bound by an injunction may also be bound in proper cases. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 94 S.Ct. 414, 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973).
Regards,
Lee
You're making the poor assumption that what he pasted in to this thread is the end all and be all of TROs and injunctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
An injunction's applicants are the plaintiffs in the action, and if it's an organization doing the applying, it's being done on behalf of their members. Therefore, they're the ones covered.
Just like if a labor union or any other such group were to file for an injunction. Obviously it'd cover more than just the officers of the labor union. It would be filed by the union on behalf of its membership for sake of its membership.
Well I am no lawyer but I think some of this is like comparing apples to oranges.
Injunction can be for an action, that being a stalker or entity who is doing something they believe is in contravention of a law or rights while another type is in regards to the law itself... surely an injunction against a law being unconstitutional in whatever form cannot be limited to being halted only for a group bringing the action... either the law applies to all or none...
As I read this, isn't the main thrust a court injunction granting a restraining order against the DOJ from enforcing 2257? Injunctions are different are they not? They in fact prevent an action from coming into being or being applied, and if it doesn't come into effect how can it then be selectively applied?
Where is Chad when you need him.. oh wait its wednesday, wonder if he's at the golf course? :goofy:
I believe that members of the FSC would be in "active concert" to the legal challenges that are going to take place and thus protected by a restraining order.