[asterisk-biz] Obtaining DIDs

[Jed Stafford]

I know at least in Washington State you do not even
need to serve the person you have filed against. Just
an abled body adult at the known address of the person
being served. Sounds to me like it was a bogus threat
in the first place. But logic from my experiances does
not apply to the court system when being served
something comes in to play. They've heard it all about
why you don't think you were served and from my
experience will dismiss most all claims to the
contrary. As the fact that you are disputing it alone
is acceptance that you knew.

You also do not need an active license to be a lawyer
in the state you are working. Ie. A lot of corporate
general counsels are not current with the bar as they
have no plans to enter a courtroom again. What matters
is who actually files the paperwork with the clerk and
who will show up in court is my understanding.

In any event, I'm now guily of being off topic, and
sadly on the topic of DIDx which I really am tired of
hearing about.



--- Mark <mark at asteriskswitch.com> wrote:

> trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 01:10 -0600, Mark wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>I doubt that! See how you "own" the DID when a
> shifty seller drops out 
> >>of DIDx! DIDx does not protect the buyer when a
> seller leaves the DIDx 
> >>syste.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >they claim they do in their faq, where if it doesnt
> work for the month
> >due to that you get a refund or something.  I
> recall a post from linda I
> >think on that not that long ago.
> >
> >Most carriers can change your did at will,
> broadvoice for example
> >changed someones tollfree for no aparent reason,
> information of that was
> >posted to this list about the same time as the
> comments on their faq,
> >maybe a month ago.
> >  
> >
> Most COULD , but how many WOULD?
> 
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >>attempting to use scare tactics against me for
> excercising my rights of 
> >>free speech based solely on the facts of my
> experience with their 
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >you should reread the constitution, you dont have
> an absolute right to
> >speech in america, private entities can curtail
> that freely, think of a
> >movie theater where you can be removed if you talk
> during the movie.
> >Then there are other limitations, such as you cant
> yell 'fire' in a
> >crowded theater, etc.
> >
> >The first amendment is a limitation on the
> government not a priviledge
> >granted to you, its a symantic difference but one
> that need to be
> >understood if you want to understand the meaning
> and intent of the
> >amendment.  
> >
> >And lastly something that most people dont seem to
> understand is that a
> >right to speech doesnt guarantee a right to be
> heard.
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> I am not in a PRIVATE movie theater, I am in a
> PUBLIC FORUM that anyone 
> can join.. Those of you who do not DEFEND your
> rights will let them 
> erode away for all. The Constitution of the US
> (where I am not located 
> anyway, nor was I when I made my comments)
> superceedes ALL other laws in 
> the USA. In fact, freedom of expression by way of
> internet posts has 
> been upheld as one of the most protected forms of
> expression available 
> by the US Supreme Court. Furthermore thre is NEVER
> anything wrong with 
> what one BELIEVES to be true. I BELIEVE all of my
> statements, and have 
> adequate proof to back my statements.
> 
> >  
> >
> >>organization. This "notice" was served via email
> which I do not believe 
> >>is a valid form for serving a legal notice in any
> US State, although I 
> >>am not an attorney, so I may be wrong.
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >It is providing it is delivered to the correct
> person.  You can
> >obviously try to challenge it as 'defective
> service' but by doing that
> >you admit that you infact got it.  But its too late
> to try to say that
> >you didnt get it now, your post that you were
> infact served is now
> >archived all over the net :)  assuming it was
> actually service and not
> >just a more informal notice.
> >
> >To prove this is accepted by the courts, well sorta
> (I dont recall the
> >exact cite, but google does have it indexed
> somewhere) a lawyer
> >challenged notice in court saying the email was
> lost (he didnt appear in
> >the first place) - he wasnt saying it wasnt sent,
> because he cant prove
> >that, only saying that he never received it -
> something no one else can
> >prove under normal circumstances.  This was last
> summer iirc.
> >
> >  
> >