On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Raul Miller wrote: > On 1/29/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The difference is that without this clause, the first step is to claim > > that the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the > > parties.[1] With this clause, before you can get the court to agree > > that California is an improper venue, you have to get the court to > > agree that the clause is non-binding. > > You can still claim that the court in question does not have > jurisdiction over the parties.
You can claim that the moon is cheese too, if you want.[1] The point is that in order for the court to agree that they don't have jurisdiction, you have to get them to agree that the clause is non-binding. [The claiming is a lessser issue; what the court has to do in order to agree with your claims is critical here.] > Only if the case has merit -- only if there's a valid dispute > involving the license -- would the CA courts have jurisdiction. Issues of jurisdiction are one of the first things to be determined in most cases, they occur well before the court even begins entertaining issues of merit.[2] Don Armstrong 1: Well, you'll likely be found in contempt for that... but... ;-) 2: We're almost into year 3 of the SCO case and we still haven't answered the critical question of whether the case has any merit or not... -- When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me. -- Emo Philips. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
