Great comment. We will update the guide Grellas. Thank you!

We need to decriminalize almost everything. We have too many criminal laws. Too many laws.

This is insane. We need to end the drug war.

This isn't even the drug war. It's middle aged men buying Viagra from pharmacies in India. I'm probably a minority, but I would prefer to sign a waiver and then buy my own drugs. Rather than have to pay a doctor to prescribe me something I already know I need. I'm insulin dependent, and monitor my blood sugar regularly, and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. I know far more about how my body reacts to insulin than the doctors do. I should be able to buy it without a prescription. True story: 8 years ago I was hospitalized for several months due to a bad motorcycle accident. The doctors kept prescribing me insulin that I told them was too much, and badly timed for me, but the did anyway. After a week it compounded, until my blood sugar was in the high 20s (coma territory.) of course because I was bedridden and doped up on Demerol I couldn't feel the signs of hypoglycemia. After that they relented and told the nurses to (within a wide range) administer the amount I asked for.

They didn't check your blood sugar while busy giving you this? Jesus, which country was this?

Congress should change the law so that the transfer of stock to workers is not taxed. I am not sure why pro-worker legislation like this wouldn't be supported.

If you generally solicit, under Section 201 of the JOBS Act, all of your investors have to be accredited.

If you don't generally solicit, theoretically, under Rule 506(b), you can have up to 35 non-accredited investors. BUT, if you even take one you have to provide IPO level disclosure. Ridiculously expensive. See this blog post: http://www.startuplawblog.com/2013/01/14/cant-i-let-non-accr...

short answer: no

This is a worthy donation!

The startup community needs to make its voice heard by commenting on these proposed rules...

All these rulings should be public. The judge should have to sign their name to each one. The court should be an adversarial court like every other.

Modeless, you are right. This court should be subject to the full light of day and a true adversarial process. All opinions published. With judges having to put their names on the opinions and own up to them.

The same can/should be said for "unpublished opinions"[1] of any court. I do not understand how in a common law system a judge can make a ruling and say "I don't want to be held accountable for this rash decision I just filed. Let's mark it unpublished and make sure it never has to undergo much scrutiny."

[1] This is a different unpublished than FISC decisions. Instead of "unpublished" read as "non-precedential opinions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-publication_of_legal_opinio...

I agree with you dfc. Not publishing opinions in this day and age is nuts. Everything should be published.

So no secret targets at all, then.

The court can publish opinions and cases without revealing identities or identifying details.

This would have caught the insane redefinition of "relevant" that allows for receiving all call records for everyone, for example.