IndustryCorpus
Collection
19 items
•
Updated
•
6
Datasets:
id
stringlengths 30
34
| text
stringlengths 0
67.9k
| industry_type
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/2645 | | People v. Novak
People v. Novak
County Court, Sullivan County
The People of the State New of New York, Plaintiff,v.Paul Novak, Defendant.
Gary Greenwald, Esq. Greenwald Law Offices Attorney for Defendant.
Hon. James R. Farrell Sullivan County DA Attorney for the People.
Stephen F. Lungen, Esq. Special Prosecutor, Attorney for the People.
William A. Hurst, Esq. Greenberg Traurig, LLP Attorney for Times-Herald Record.
Hilary Lane, Esq. NBC Universal—Law Department Attorney for NBC Universal.
Frank J. LaBuda, J.
As the jury trial of People v. Novak progressed through its full fifth week of trial testimony, the People served the Middletown Times-Herald Record newspaper with a Subpoena Duces Tecum, seeking to compel testimony from Victor Whitman, a reporter for the Times-Herald Record (hereinafter referred to as the "Record"), and production of all unpublished audio and video recordings and reporter's notes created during an August 2, 2013, interview of Defendant, Paul Novak, by a Record reporter (hereinafter referred to as the "Reporter") while on assignment for the newspaper. The interview took place at the request of Defendant at the Sullivan County Jail. The Times-Herald Record has filed a motion to quash the subpoena. NBC Universal has joined in that motion and submitted supplemental papers. The Court heard oral argument on September 11, 2013. [1]
The indictment before the jury charges the defendant, Paul Novak, for the murder of his estranged wife, arson in connection with the burning of the marital residence, burglary, grand larceny and insurance fraud. Jury selection for this trial began on August 5, 2013. At some point prior to jury selection, Defendant sought out and gave an interview to the Reporter for Record who has been reporting on this case for some time. [2] That interview occurred on August 2, 2013. The Times-Herald Record ran a front page story about the defendant and on the interview in the August 4, 2013, Sunday Edition of the paper. It also posted a "portion" of the video recorded interview on its website on August 4, 2013. The running of the story and posting of the interview detrimentally affected the jury pool, but the parties were eventually able to seat twelve jurors and eight alternate jurors. Opening statements and testimony commenced the following week, on August 12, 2013.
The People argue that they need the recordings and notes of the Reporter for proper examination of defense witnesses and Defendant, should he take the stand and testify. They argue that the recordings are not privileged, because Defendant requested and arranged the interview, and portions have been published, thereby invalidating application of New York's "Shield Law." The Record and NBC Universal (hereinafter referred to as "NBC") argue that the First Amendment constitutional reporter's privilege applies to all information obtained by a journalist while gathering the news, regardless of whether the information is published or used to publish other news stories and regardless of whether the person requests the interview.
The history of New York's Shield law dates back to 1970. Civil Rights Law §79-h(c). It has been amended in 1975 [3], 1981 [4], and 1990. [5] In its current version, it states in pertinent part, Qualified protection for nonconfidential news. Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or specific law to the contrary, no professional journalist... employed or otherwise associated with any newspaper... shall be adjudged in contempt by any court in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding... for refusing or failing to disclose any unpublished news obtained or prepared by a journalist... in the course of gathering or obtaining news... by a journalist... where such news was not obtained or received in confidence, unless the party seeking such news has made a clear and specific showing that the news: (I) is highly material and relevant; (ii) is critical or necessary to the maintenance of a party's claim, defense or proof of an issue material thereto; and (iii) is not obtainable from any alternate source. A court shall order disclosure only... [if] the above-described showing has been made and shall support such order with clear and specific findings made after a hearing.
Case law has evolved over the decades in response to the legislative amendments. In the landmark case of Knight-Ridder Broadcasting, Inc. v Greenberg, 70 N.Y.2d 151 [1987], the Court of Appeals stated, "Consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the 1981 amendment to the Shield Law leads inexorably to the conclusion that the Legislature, by considering and rejecting an explicit provision addressing the issue facing the court today, did not intend the Shield Law to create an absolute privilege' against disclosure." Id., at 158. In essence, the Court held that where portions of a recording have been broadcast, any claim of confidentiality with respect to such recording is destroyed, invalidating application of the Shield Law; [6] the Shield Law only protected newsgathering materials that had been imparted to a reporter under a "cloak of confidentiality."
Similarly, in People v. Korkala, 99 A.D.2d 161 [1st Dept. 1984], the First Department stated, ....[W]e are mindful of the fact that there is the qualified privilege accorded to the newsman which is founded directly upon the free speech, free press guarantees of the First Amendment and that compelling disclosure of information obtained by a reporter in news gathering can have a "'chilling effect' upon his functioning as a reporter and upon the flow of information to the general public" the court ruled that even though no confidential source issue was involved, that fact "is utterly irrelevant to the 'chilling effect' that the enforcement of these subpoenas would have on the flow of information to the press and to the public. The compelled production of a reporter's resource material is equally as invidious as the compelled disclosure of his confidential informants." Id., at 167. Although it seems clear that the unbroadcasted material is "relevant" to the subject of the prosecution and that these materials are not obtainable from any other source, it is by no means clear from this record that their production is "necessary" to the Korkala prosecution, even for impeachment or rebuttal purposes. Id., at 168. There is a long line of cases post Knight-Ridder, however, delineating a constitutional privilege, as well as the Shield Law protections afforded to journalists. In 1988, the Court of Appeals established that a reporter's constitutional privilege protects unpublished information obtained by a journalist in the course of gathering news. O'Neill v. Oakgrove Construction, Inc., 71 N.Y.2d 521 [1988]. The autonomy of the press would be jeopardized if resort to its resource materials, by litigants seeking to utilize newsgathering efforts of journalists for their private purposes, were routinely permitted. Moreover, because journalists typically gather information about accidents, crimes and other matters of special interest that often give rise to litigation, attempts to obtain evidence by subjecting the pres to discovery as a nonparty would be widespread if not restricted on a routine basis. The practical burdens on time and resources, as well as the consequent diversion of journalistic effort and disruption of newsgathering activity, would be particularly inimical to the vigor of a free press. Id., at 526-527. The Court of Appeals, in Oakgrove, discussed the tripartite test used to determine whether a trial court could compel production of confidential information from a journalist. The Court stated that the party seeking production of the items sought must show: (1) that the information is highly material, (2) the information or material is critical to the litigant's claim, and (3) that the information and/or materials are not available elsewhere. Id., at 527. The Court further explained that "if the material sought is pertinent merely to an ancillary issue in the litigation, not essential to the maintenance of the litigant's claim, or obtainable through an alternative source, disclosure may not be compelled." Id. Furthermore, the New York State Constitution, Article 1, §8 indicates this privilege extends to all information obtained or otherwise generated in the course of news gathering, whether the information is confidential or nonconfidential. Id., at 524. The qualified protection provided to journalists is a mandate—not only in the First Amendment to the united States Constitution, but also of the New York State constitution.
The People have argued that the Oakgrove decision is limited to civil matters and not applicable here. That argument, however, is not supported by a fair reading of the Court's decision. To be sure, in some of the cases in which a constitutional reporter's privilege [sic] was recognized, the countervailing government interest was not as compelling as the grand jury investigation in Branzburg v. Hayes (408 U.S. 665). Nevertheless, the courts have held the three-pronged test applicable regardless of the criminal or civil context [ citations omitted ]. Id., at 528 n. 2. The tripartite test adopted in Oakgrove applies in criminal matters as well as civil matters. This does not mean a reporter's privilege will never yield to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right under the United States Constitution, but to determine if it does, the court must engage in the tripartite test to make that determination. See, People v. Troiano, 127 Misc.2d 738 [County Ct. Suffolk Co. 1985].
The People's reliance on Korkala, supra, is likewise misplaced. The First Department in Korkala decided whether the then (1981) current version of the Shield law created an absolute privilege for nonconfidential, unpublished outtakes of a press interview of a criminal defendant. In that case, the prosecution, as in the instant case, claimed a need for the outtakes for use on cross-examination to impeach the defendant—to rebut a prospective defense through admissions the defendant made during the course of the interview. The court indicated that the "cloak of confidentiality" requirement was still required under the 1981 amendments to the Shield Law and therefore determined there was no statutory protection for the subpoenaed outtakes. Regardless, the Korkala court recognized and applied the qualified constitutional privilege, and the decision has since had no precedential force and effect because of Oakgrove and the 1990 amendments to the Shield Law.
The People also rely on National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. People, 238 A.D.2d 618 [2nd Dept. 1997], a post- Oakgrove case, in which a reporter interviewed a murder defendant in a jail setting. Unlike the case at bar, however, the defendant in National Broadcasting confessed to the crime during the interview, and that portion of the interview was broadcast on the news. Therefore, the Second Department held that the People satisfied the tripartite test by showing a factual predicate to support their claim that the subpoenaed materials might contain evidence by way of further admissions of guilt by the defendant.
In the case at bar, the People have not met their burden under the tripartite test in Oakgrove or Civil Rights Law §79-h(c). The People have indicated they "need" the subject material, but have not shown the recording and notes are highly relevant and that the recording and notes are critical or necessary to the People's case or proof of a material issue. They have failed to meet the first two prongs of the test. In their own argument, the People indicated they need the material because the defendant may testify. Whether the defendant testifies is speculative, and therefore, whether the recording and notes are highly material or relevant is also speculative, especially considering that during the recorded interview Defendant consistently denied his involvement with the crime and stressed that he was innocent (unlike the defendant in National Broadcasting, supra).
The People have not demonstrated how the recordings could be used to impeach the defendant, herein, nor have they met the second prong of the test, which requires that the material is critical or necessary to the maintenance of their claim—that Defendant murdered his wife. While this Court takes note of the numerous cases cited by the People used to support their argument for compelled disclosure, the Court finds the arguments too speculative, as all of the cases are factually inapposite to the case at bar, as Defendant Novak proclaimed his innocence.
The case law on which the People rely is prior to the Oakgrove decision and the 1990 amendments to the Shield Law. The post-amendments and post- Oakgrove case on which the People rely are factually distinguishable from the case at bar, as Defendant Novak did not confess to this crime during the interview with the reporter from the Times-Herald Record newspaper.
Thus, in the case at bar, the Novak "jail house" interview is protected constitutionally, statutorily and judicially. In holding so, this Court confirms the basic right of free press, which guarantees to all of us, our right to be free citizens in a society of law, without fear of improper or overreaching government intrusions.
Based on the foregoing, it is therefore
ORDERED that motion to quash the subpoena is granted.
This shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/2658 | 256 U.S. 350 - American Bank Trust Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Ga Homethe United States Reports256 U.S.
256 US 350 American Bank Trust Co v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Ga 256 U.S. 350
AMERICAN BANK & TRUST CO. et al.v.FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF ATLANTA, GA., et al.
Argued April 13 and 14, 1921.
Mr. Alexander W. Smith, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.
Messrs. Hollins N. Randolph and Robert S. Parker, both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellees.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 351-355 intentionally omitted]
This is a bill in equity brought by country banks incorporated by the State of Georgia against the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, incorporated under the laws of the United States, and its officers. It was brought in a State Court but removed to the District Court of the United States on the petition of the defendants. A motion to remand was made by the plaintiffs but was overruled. The allegations of the bill may be summed up in comparatively few words. The plaintiffs are not members of the Federal Reserve System and many of them have too small a capital to permit their joining it—a capital that could not be increased to the required amount in the thinly populated sections of the country where they operate. An important part of the income of these small institutions is a charge for the services rendered by them in paying checks drawn upon them at a distance and forwarded, generally by other banks, through the mail. The charge covers the expense incurred by the paying bank and a small profit. The banks in the Federal Reserve System are forbidden to make such charges to other banks in the System. Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913, c. 6, § 13; 38 Stat. 263; amended March 3, 1915, c. 93; 38 Stat. 958; September 7, 1916, c. 461; 39 Stat. 752; and June 21, 1917, c. 32, §§ 4, 5; 40 Stat. 234, 235 (Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 9796). It is alleged that in pursuance of a policy accepted by the Federal Reserve Board the defendant bank has determined to use its power to compel the plaintiffs and others in like situation to become members of the defendant, or at least to open a nonmember clearing account with defendant, and thereby under the defendant's requirements, to make it necessary for the plaintiffs to maintain a much larger reserve than in their present condition they need. This diminution of their lending power coupled with the loss of the profit caused by the above mentioned clearing of bank checks and drafts at par will drive some of the plaintiffs out of business and diminish the income of all. To accomplish the defendants' wish they intend to accumulate checks upon the country banks until they reach a large amount and then to cause them to be presented for payment over the counter or by other devices detailed to require payment in cash in such wise as to compel the plaintiffs to maintain so much cash in their vaults as to drive them out of business or force them, if able, to submit to the defendant's scheme. It is alleged that the proposed conduct will deprive the plaintiffs or their property without due process of law contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and that it is ultra vires. The bill seeks an injunction against the defendants collecting checks except in the usual way. The District Court dismissed the bill for want of equity and its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals (November 19, 1920). The plaintiffs appealed, setting up want of jurisdiction in the District Court and error in the final decree.
We agree with the Court below that he removal was proper. The principal dependant was incorporated under the laws of the United States and that has been established as a ground of jurisdiction since Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 6 L. Ed. 204; Pacific Railroad Removal Cases, 115 U. S. 1, 5 Sup. Ct. 1113, 29 L. Ed. 319; Matter of Dunn, 212 U. S. 374, 29 Sup. Ct. 299, 53 L. Ed. 558. We shall say but a word in answer to the appellants' argument that a suit against such a corporation is not a suit arising under those laws within section 24 of the Judicial Code of March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087 (Comp. St. § 991). The contrary is established, and the accepted doctrine is intelligible at least since it is part of the plaintiffs' case that the defendant bank existed and exists as an entity capable of committing the wrong alleged and of being sued. These facts depend upon the laws of the United States. Bankers' Trust Co. v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co., 241 U. S. 295, 306, 307, 36 Sup. Ct. 569, 60 L. Ed. 1010; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cody, 166 U. S. 606, 17 Sup. Ct. 703, 41 L. Ed. 1132. See further Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U. S. 180, 41 Sup. Ct. 243, 65 L. Ed. 577, February 28, 1921. A more plausible objection is that by the Judicial Code, § 24, sixteenth, except as therein excepted national banking associations for the purposes of suits against them are to be deemed citizens of the States in which they are respectively located. But we agree with the Court below that the reasons for localizing ordinary commercial banks do not apply to the Federal Reserve Banks created after the Judicial Code was enacted and that the phrase 'national banking associations' does not reach forward and include them. That phrase is used to describe the ordinary commercial banks whereas the others are systematically called 'Federal Reserve Banks'. We see no sufficient ground for supposing that Congress meant to open the questions that the other construction would raise.
On the merits we are of opinion that the Courts below went too far. The question at this stage is not what the plaintiffs may be able to prove, or what may be the reasonable interpretation of the defendants' acts, but whether the plaintiffs have shown a ground for relief if they can prove what they allege. We lay on one side as not necessary to our decision the question of the defendants' powers, and assuming that they act within them consider only whether the use that according to the bill they intend to make of them will infringe the plaintiffs' rights. The defendants say that the holder of a check has a right to present it to the bank upon which it was drawn for payment over the counter, and that however many checks he may hold he has the same right as to all of them and may present them all at once, whatever his motive or intent. They ask whether a mortgagee would be prevented from foreclosing because he acted from disinterested malevolence and not from a desire to get his money. But the word 'right' is one of the most deceptive of pitfalls; it is so easy to slip from a qualified meaning in the premise to an unqualified one in the conclusion. Most rights are qualified. A man has at least as absolute a right to give his own money as he has to demand money from a party that has made no promise to him; yet if he gives it to induce another to steal or murder the purpose of the act makes it a crime.
A bank that receives deposits to be drawn upon by check of course authorizes its depositors to draw checks against their accounts and holders of such checks to present them for payment. When we think of the ordinary case the right of the holder is so unimpeded that it seems to us absolute. But looked at from either side it cannot be so. The interests of business also are recognized as rights, protected against injury to a greater or less extent, and in case of conflict between the claims of business on the one side and of third persons on the other lines have to be drawn that limit both. A man has a right to give advice but advice given for the sole purpose of injuring another's business and effective on a large scale, might create a cause of action. Banks as we know them could not exist if they could not rely upon averages and lend a large part of the money that they receive from their depositors on the assumption that not more than a certain fraction of it will be demanded on any one day. If without a word of falsehood but acting from what we have called disinterested malevolence a man by persuasion should organize and carry into effect a run upon a bank and ruin it, we cannot doubt that an action would lie. A similar result even if less complete in its effect is to be expected from the course that the defendants are alleged to intend, and to determine whether they are authorized to follow that course it is not enough to refer to the general right of a holder of checks to present them but it is necessary to consider whether the collection of checks and presenting them in a body for the purpose of breaking down the petitioner's business as now conducted is justified by the ulterior purpose in view.
If this were a case of competition in private business it would be hard to admit the justification of self interest considering the now current opinion as to public policy expressed in statutes and decisions. But this is not a private business. The policy of the Federal Reserve Banks is governed by the policy of the United States with regard to them and to these relatively feeble competitors. We do not need aid from the debates upon the statute under which the Reserve Banks exist to assume that the United States did not intend by that statute to sanction this sort of warfare upon legitimate creations of the States.
Decree reversed. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/2873 | Jury Statement
Competition Guidelines
Paula Grant-Berry
Paula Grant Berry serves on the LMDC Families Advisory Council and was a Memorial Program Drafting Committee member. Her husband, David Berry, was killed in the South Tower of the World Trade Center. Ms. Grant Berry graduated from Harvard University in 1979 and received her MBA from the Columbia University Business School in 1988. She has held several executive positions in publishing and marketing including Doubleday, the Economist, Newsweek, Gruner & Jahr and Scholastic. Ms. Grant Berry is a resident of Brooklyn where she lives with her three children. Susan K. Freedman
Susan Freedman is the President of the Public Art Fund. She currently serves as a representative on the Board of the Museum of Modern Art, as well as on the Boards of the Municipal Art Society, the Eldridge Street Project, WNYC Radio, and as Secretary of the Board for the City Parks Foundation. Ms. Freedman is the recipient of the 1999 Associates of the Art Commission Annual Award, and was selected as one of four finalists for the North American MontBlanc de la Culture Award in 1994. Prior to her current position, Ms. Freedman served as the Assistant to Mayor Edward I. Koch and Director of Special Projects and Events for the Arts Commission of the City of New York. Vartan Gregorian, Ph.D.
Dr. Vartan Gregorian is the President of the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Prior to his current position, he served for nine years as the sixteenth president of Brown University. Dr. Gregorian is the founding dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania (1974-1978), and served as the twenty-third provost of the University until 1981. For eight years (1981-1989), he served as the President of the New York Public Library. Mr. Gregorian is the author of Emergence of Modern Afghanistan, 1880-1946. His awards include the Ellis Island Medal of Honor, the American Academy of the Institute of Arts and Letters' Gold Medal for Service to the Arts and the National Humanities Medal awarded by President William Jefferson Clinton.
Patricia Harris
Patricia Harris is the Deputy Mayor for Administration for the City of New York. Prior to her appointment, Harris managed Bloomberg LP's Corporate Communications Department, overseeing its Philanthropy, Public Relations, and Governmental Affairs divisions. Prior to her employment at Bloomberg, she was Vice President for Public Relations at Serino Coyne Advertising. She served for 12 years in the administration of Mayor Edward I. Koch as Executive Director of the Art Commission -- the agency that reviews all public art, architecture and landscape architecture on city property-- and before that, as Assistant to the Mayor for Federal Affairs.
Maya Lin
Maya Lin is known for her site-specific art and architectural projects. For over fifteen years, Ms. Lin has run her own studio in New York City, creating installations and buildings throughout the country. Current architectural projects include an 8,000 square foot chapel for the Children's Defense Fund in Clinton, TN, and a 20,000 square foot bakery for the Greyston Foundation in Yonkers, NY. She is working on art installations for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial in Washington State and the Fine Arts Plaza at the University of California at Irvine. Ms. Lin gained international recognition for creating the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial in Washington, D.C. and the Civil Rights memorial in Montgomery, AL. She is a board member of the Yale Corporation and the Natural Resources Defense Council. She is represented by Gagosian Gallery in New York City. Michael McKeon
Michael McKeon is a Managing Director of Mercury Public Affairs. Prior to joining Mercury, Mr. McKeon served as Governor Pataki's Director of Communications, and as the Governor's chief spokesman. He was responsible for overseeing the State's crisis communications, during and after the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. As the Governor's chief liaison on September 11th issues to City Hall and family groups, McKeon worked closely with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his staff, along with White House senior staff, on the development and production of the ceremonies marking the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks. Prior to joining the Pataki administration in May 1995, McKeon worked for more than 10 years as a reporter for three New York newspapers, winning several awards for local and political reporting.
Julie Menin
Julie Menin is the President and Founder of Wall Street Rising, a not-for-profit organization founded in October 2001. The organization's mission is to help restore vibrancy and vitality in Lower Manhattan as a 24/7 mixed-use community and destination. Ms. Menin was formerly the Senior Regulatory Attorney at Colgate-Palmolive. Ms. Menin is a resident of Lower Manhattan and owns Vine Restaurant, located in the Financial District. Some of Wall Street Rising's programs and services have included Art Downtown, Do It Downtown! Discount Card Program, a Resident and Retail Attraction Program and a Downtown Information Center.
Enrique Norten
Enrique Norten founded Taller de Enrique Norten Arquictectos S.C. (TEN Arquitectos) in 1985 with partner Bernardo Gomez-Pimienta. He is the recipient of many architectural awards, including the Honorary Fellowship from the American Institute of Architects, and the first "Mies van der Rohe" Award for Latin America. He has taught at, among other institutions, the Pratt Institute, Rice University, Columbia and Harvard. In July, 2002 he received a commission, his first in the United States, from the Brooklyn Public Library, to design its Visual and Performing Arts Library. Mr. Norten was founding member of the editorial board of the magazine Arquitectura. He teaches at the University of Pennsylvania, where he holds the Miller Chair of Architecture. Mr. Norten has extensive jury experience. Martin Puryear
Martin Puryear is a world renowned artist who studied painting at Catholic University in Washington, D.C., and then served as a Peace Corps teacher in Sierra Leone from 1964 to 1966. He went on to study at the Swedish Royal Academy of Art in Stockholm and later received his Masters of Fine Arts from Yale University. In 1989 Mr. Puryear received the MacArthur Foundation Grant and was awarded the Grand Prize at the Sao Paolo Biennale, where he represented the United States. At the invitation of the French Ministry of Culture, he then worked at the Calder Atelier in Sache, France in 1992. Mr. Puryear recently completed several large scale projects including a stainless steel sculpture for the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles and a commissioned installation for the Festival d'Automne in Paris. His work is represented in private collections in the United States, Europe and Japan.
Nancy Rosen
Nancy Rosen has been working in the field of public art for the past three decades, organizing temporary exhibitions of outdoor sculpture and, in 1980, establishing her office, Nancy Rosen Incorporated, to assist public agencies, not-for-profit institutions and other clients to plan and implement public art programs and fine art collections. Her assignments have included organizing the Art-for-Public-Spaces program for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. and the first phase of the public art program for Battery Park City. She has advised the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and serves as the advisor to the Committee for Art in Public Places at Middlebury College. She has been a consultant and panelist for the New York State Council on the Arts and the City of New York, and has chaired the Art in Public Places grants panel for the National Endowment for the Arts. At the invitation of the U.S. General Services Administration, Ms. Rosen participated in that agency's Art-in-Architecture Workshop. She has been serving on the Art Commission of the City of New York since 2002.
Lowery Stokes Sims, Ph.D.
Lowery Stokes Sims is the Executive Director of the Studio Museum in Harlem. As Director of the museum, she has overseen major expansion and renovation projects of their facility and collection. Prior to her appointment in January 2000, she was Curator of Modern Art at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, on staff since 1972. Dr. Sims received her B.A. in art history from Queens College of the City University of New York, her M.A. in art history from John Hopkins University and her M. Phil. and Ph.D in art history from the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York. Dr. Sims has served nationally as a juror and guest curator at institutions including the Queens Museum, the Pratt Institute, the Carribbean Cultural Center (New York), Cooper Union, the New Museum of Contemporary Art, and the California Museum of Afro-American History and Culture.
Michael Van Valkenburgh
Michael Van Valkenburgh is the founder and principal of Michael Van Valkenburgh Architects in Manhattan and Cambridge and he currently resides in New York City's West Village. The work of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates has won numerous national design awards from the American Society of Landscape Architects and a Progressive Architecture Award in 1997 for Allegheny Riverfront Park. Michael was named the Charles Eliot Professor in Practice of Landscape Architecture at the Harvard Graduate School of Design, where he teaches a design studio once a year. He also served as chairman of the department between 1991 and 1996. Mr. Van Valkenburgh has extensive jury experience.
James E. Young, Ph.D.
James Young is the Professor & Chair of the Department of Judaic & Near Eastern Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He is also the author of At Memory's Edge: After-images of the Holocaust in Contemporary Art and Architecture; The Texture of Memory, which won the National Jewish Book Award in 1994; and Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust, which won a Choice Outstanding Book Award for 1988. Professor Young was also guest curator of an exhibition at the Jewish Museum, The Art of Memory: Holocaust Memorials in History. Professor Young was appointed by the Berlin Senate to the five-member commission for Germany's national "Memorial to Europe's Murdered Jews," now under construction in Berlin. Mr. Young is a resident of Massachusetts and has extensive jury experience.
In recognition of his accomplishments and devotion to New York City, David Rockefeller will serve as an honorary member on the jury. As honorary member, Mr. Rockefeller will be available for consultation on the guiding vision for the World Trade Center and to provide historical perspective to the evolution of downtown Manhattan.
David Rockefeller Mr. Rockefeller is a distinguished philanthropist, business leader and patron of the arts. He is Chairman Emeritus of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. Mr. Rockefeller served as an officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank from 1946 to 1981 and as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from 1969 until 1981. He led Chase Manhattan Bank in building Chase Plaza and becoming a principal anchor downtown during the fiscal crisis in the 1970s. Since then, he has served as Chairman of the bank's International Advisory Committee. Mr. Rockefeller has a long history of vigorous and successful advocacy on behalf of Lower Manhattan, including the chairmanship of the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association. Mr. Rockefeller was the visionary and leading force behind the development of the original World Trade Center site. He was the founder of the NYC Partnership, now the Partnership for NYC, which continues to serve as the premier voice for business in New York. Mr. Rockefeller is also involved in numerous other business, cultural and educational organizations as well as foundation boards and charitable activities. Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Acknowledgements | LMDC Website | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/2937 | Legal Articles Criminal Defense
HomeLegal Help CenterCriminal Defense
Pennsylvania Criminal Defense
Tweet If you have committed a crime in Pennsylvania, are suspected of committing a crime in Pennsylvania, or have been accused of committing a crime in Pennsylvania, the government may prosecute you. If found guilty, you could face punishment ranging from the relatively minor (a small fine, for example) to the very severe (such as prison time). The Pennsylvania state government, as well as town and city governments, is responsible for enforcing Pennsylvania criminal law. The federal government enforces federal criminal law. According to Wikipedia: Criminal law involves the prosecution of wrongful acts by the state which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace….The vast majority of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud. Types of Crimes in Pennsylvania Crimes are generally categorized as felonies and misdemeanors. A felony is a more serious crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison. A misdemeanor is punishable by one year or less in prison, or no prison time at all. Certain crimes may be both felonies and misdemeanors depending on the severity of the crime and whether you have previously been found guilty of the same crime. Examples of Pennsylvania felonies may include: Aggravated assault and battery in Pennsylvania Arson in Pennsylvania Burglary in Pennsylvania Robbery in Pennsylvania Murder in Pennsylvania Kidnapping in Pennsylvania Examples of Pennsylvania misdemeanors may include: Petty theft in Pennsylvania Public intoxication in Pennsylvania Possession of small amounts of drugs in Pennsylvania Reckless driving in Pennsylvania If you have been charged with a crime in Pennsylvania, a local Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney can explain the potential consequences of the crime and help defend you in court. The Pennsylvania Criminal Process The Pennsylvania criminal law process involves a number of stages. These stages may vary depending on the jurisdiction and severity of the crime. In general, the criminal justice process involves the following stages: Pennsylvania state law enforcement officials or local law enforcement investigate the crime A Pennsylvania judge may issue a search warrant that allows investigators to search for evidence at a specific location Law enforcement officials will interrogate witnesses and potential suspects to gain more information If the officers have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, they will arrest the person suspected of committing the crime Law enforcement officials will decide to file criminal charges against the person suspected of committing the crime The charges will be read to the person in court during an arraignment, where the person accused of the crime is asked to plead guilty or not guilty The person accused of the crime (also known as the defendant) may be released from custody or may be kept in jail while awaiting trial Before trial, the defendant's Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney may attempt to negotiate a plea bargain, or agreement for the defendant to plead guilty to lesser charges If a plea agreement cannot be reached, the defendant's case will be resolved in a trial, where evidence is presented and either a judge or jury decides whether the defendant is guilty of the crime After the judge or jury considers all of the evidence, a verdict is reached If the defendant is found guilty, he or she may choose to appeal the decision and ask a higher Pennsylvania court to overturn it because of mistakes made during the criminal justice process If you are found guilty of a crime in Pennsylvania, the punishment may vary depending on the severity of the crime, your intentions when you committed the crime, and your past criminal record. A Pennsylvania criminal defense lawyer can explain the consequences to you in more detail. Additional Pennsylvania Criminal Law Resources The U.S. Department of Justice's information on federal criminal law Expungement of criminal records in Pennsylvania Information about the U.S. Courts Information about Pennsylvania Courts Lawyers.com information about classification of crimes The Pennsylvania State Police The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office More About This Topic
Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Criminal Lawyer Penalty for Class B Felony What Do Criminal Defense Attorneys Do Types of Criminal Defenses What Are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws Copyright © 2016 Internet Brands. All rights reserved. ® | Disclaimer | Terms and conditions | Privacy | Cookie Policy | Are you an attorney? | Site Map | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3039 | New anti-spam legislation is 'a mess' says internet lawyer
Internet, privacy lawyer David Fraser calls legislation 'onerous, complicated and cumbersome'
By Yvonne Colbert, CBC News
Posted: Jun 25, 2014 10:26 AM AT
Last Updated: Jun 25, 2014 10:26 AM AT
Canada's tough new anti-spam legislation kicks in on July 1, meaning businesses that send out unwanted emails and even social media messages could face some massive fines. (Shutterstock) Related Stories
New anti-spam legislation worrying business owners, community groups New anti-spam law concerns small business operators
Small businesses not ready for anti-spam law, CFIB says
Starting July 1, businesses and some other organizations are going to see big changes with the implementation of federal anti-spam legislation. Beginning Canada Day, businesses that send texts, emails, instant messages, Facebook messages, or any other type of electronic commercial message, will have to meet a number of very specific requirements. Every electronic message will have to include the full name of the sender, their mailing address, website, phone number and the ability to unsubscribe — which the company must act on within 10 days. "Just about everyone that communicates with any of their customers and members needs to think about what sort of impact this legislation might have on them," said internet and privacy lawyer David Fraser. He said the legislation, written 10 years ago, is designed to eliminate nuisance emails. But Fraser calls it "a mess" saying it's "onerous, complicated and cumbersome," and doesn't address the realities of today. Legislation too broad He said many businesses don't think of themselves as being spammers and said the legislation is too broad. "Last weekend my son and a friend decided to have a lemonade stand and if this had taken place after July 1 and they had emailed around to the neighbours to let them know about this lemonade stand, they would have been regulated under this legislation. They would have been considered to be a spammer even if they had done that on behalf of a charity," said Fraser. He said he has spoken to business owners who think they're compliant when they're not. He said the legislation puts too much of a burden on businesses and is costing his clients money for legal fees, not to mention teams of employees focused on ensuring businesses are compliant. Alyssa Buchanan, manager at the Halifax candy shop Sweet Janes, said her day-to-day business hasn't really been affected by the changes. Fraser said the impact on business is completely disproportionate to the benefits for consumers and lumps fraudulent inheritance scams with discounts from your favourite store. The rules vary, depending on the type of organization. Charities and non-profits also need to be aware of the potential impact on them. Hefty fines for those who don't comply This legislation, designed to reduce emails, is actually causing an increase in them, as companies reach out to their customers, seeking their consent to send them emails after the July 1 deadline. Those who don't comply with the legislation risk hefty fines of up to $1 million for individuals and up to $10 million for businesses. Fraser said, generally, it will be enforced by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and he gets the sense that "they're very excited at the prospect of strapping on a badge and becoming law enforcement officers. "I haven't gotten a sense that they're taking a wait and see approach or that they're going to take a particular remedial approach, in terms of helping businesses become compliant if they're found to have messed up. I have a feeling they're going to be pretty aggressive out of the gate, looking for some quick wins and looking for some companies to make examples out of." Report Typo or Error | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3101 | In the Courts - Jul 31, 2002
01:25 AM, Wednesday, July 31 2002 | 570 views | 0 | 4 | | Unruly passengerAn 18-year-old Russellville male was arrested Tuesday morning and cited for public intoxication, disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental operations and terroristic threatening during a traffic stop at Highway 7 North and Aspen Lane.According to a police report, Officer Kevin Burnham saw a white GMC Sierra pickup truck travel left of center several times while driving on Highway 7. Someone in the vehicle was yelling out the window as the officer passed by them, although there were no other vehicles or pedestrians around.The report indicated the center passenger kept interrupting and used profanity when the officer attempted to talk to the driver, and continued to use loud, tumultuous behavior and became belligerent when he stated he owned the truck. The subject gave conflicting information, stating "Maybe someone spilled something in my truck," then changed his statement and said, "I've only had one beer, that's why I'm not driving."Burnham called for other officers due to the subject's continued profanity and aggressive behavior. The male could not complete field sobriety tests due to his inability to maintain his balance. A portable breath test result was .24 percent, and the subject had to be physically placed in the patrol vehicle for transport to the Pope County Detention Center.The report stated the subject was placed in an isolation cell by at least two correctional officers, and continued to cause problems and was out of control until at least 6 a.m. Burnham cited the individual with three counts of terroristic threatening due to his behavior.Marijuana arrestAn 18-year-old Russellville male was arrested and cited for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), possession of an instrument of crime and driving left of center Monday at Fourth and Arkansas.According to a police report, Officer Diana Turner conducted a traffic stop on a black Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck. Other passengers in the truck were listed in the report as an 18-year-old male, given address of 416 Skyline Vista Lane, and 18-year-old male, 407 Dove Place.After the driver gave consent to search the vehicle, Turner discovered two packages of rolling papers in an open storage compartment in the driver's side door. A green leafy substance believed to be marijuana was found in a brown ashtray under the driver's seat. A marble smoking pipe was discovered under the passenger's side seat.The driver stated, "It is my truck, so everything in it belongs to me." He was transported to the detention center.ReminderThe Russellville Police Department and Pope County 9-1-1 Emergency Communications remind residents about what agency and phone numbers to call when they need to talk to an officer.Persons who need an officer sent to them are asked to call the non-emergency phone number, 968-0911. Emergency calls are to be made to 9-1-1.If there is a question concerning "time payments," Russellville District Court will need to be contacted at 968-1393. Persons who cannot make their payments in full are asked to have the court date continued or if a balance sheet is needed, district court staff members need to be notified at 968-1393.The Russellville Police Department will need to be contacted if persons are checking on the status of a city report. The number is 968-3232. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3105 | Case Western Reserve law dean takes shots from writer in American Lawyer
LinkedIn Google+ “Doubling down on a losing hand is rarely a good move, yet that is precisely what Case Western Reserve Law School dean Lawrence E. Mitchell is doing.”That's the tough-minded first sentence of this piece, on AmericanLawyer.com, from Steven J. Harper, an adjunct professor at Northwestern University and author of the forthcoming book “The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis.”Mr. Harper writes that Dean Mitchell “has made himself the poster child for deans in denial — the law school story of 2012” with a New York Times op-ed piece last November and a Jan. 4 Bloomberg Law (video) interview. (My Nov. 29 blog post about Dean Mitchell's original defense of law schools is here.Last June, Mr. Harper notes, the American Bar Association released data showing that nine months after graduation, only about 50% of the law school class of 2011 had found full-time jobs that required a law degree.In text accompanying the Bloomberg Law interview, the news service says the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects there will be 74,000 new lawyer jobs this decade — but American law schools will produce more than 400,000 graduates.Despite those numbers, "it's not clear to me there's an oversupply problem at all," Dean Mitchell says in the interview. With so many legal needs of the poor going unmet, "finding different paths for people who truly want to be lawyers opens up all sorts of possibilities" for law graduates to find jobs, he tells Bloomberg Law.“As support, he cited low-income people who go without legal services,” Mr. Harper writes. Bloomberg Law interviewer Lee Pacchia then “asked him how debt-ridden graduates paying Case more than $40,000 in annual tuition could take on such work full-time.”“His response was less than persuasive,” Mr. Harper writes. “It's a mistake, Mitchell said, to 'measure the worth of higher education by the dollar return on the investment.' Perhaps he has a point, but it's not really an answer to Pacchia's question.”The piece goes on at length with sections labeled “Cost Spiral,” “How About Decent Jobs?” and “Optimism Untethered to Reality,” so that should give you a sense of the tone of Mr. Harper's argument. If you enjoy academic food fights, by all means read this.This and that
That'll pay for some free agents: The Akron Beacon Journal reports that FirstEnergy Corp.'s stadium right naming deal with the Cleveland Browns is worth $6 million a year, and it runs for 17 years.Do that math and that's $102 million — on par with naming rights deals in Indianapolis (20 years, $122 million) and Philadelphia (21 years, $139 million).Up all night: Forest City Enterprises is proposing a “mixed-use innovation center” in San Francisco with up to 1,000 housing units, 2.2 million square feet of office space, and spaces to accommodate 275,000 square feet of artisans, retailers, designers, and boutique manufacturers.The project at San Francisco's Pier 70 was unveiled to the public this week at a Central Waterfront Advisory Group meeting, the San Francisco Business Times reports.In an interview with the newspaper, a Forest City senior vice president, Alexa Arena, says the developer is aiming for a lively, around-the-clock environment.“We think to deliver an office campus of the future, it includes residential,” Ms. Arena says. “The two are intimately connected. If you don't have a 24-hour living place, you are not responding to the talent and the kind of talent companies need to house.”Ticket to savings: Cedar Point in Sandusky is one of the amusement parks mentioned in this Wall Street Journal story about the perks offered to guests who stay at the parks' hotels.“For travelers planning a theme-park vacation, it is increasingly valuable — although not necessarily less expensive — to stay at one of the resort's hotels,” The Journal says. “That is, a family may pay more to stay at a theme park hotel, but receive high-value, hard-to-get perks as part of a lodging package, which the major parks are increasingly offering to entice more guests to sleep inside their gates.”Park operators including Disney and Universal “are emphasizing exclusive benefits such as early park access and line-hopping privileges, as well as more room discounts and package deals,” according to the story.Guests who stay in on-property hotels at Cedar Point are allowed early access to some popular rides, including the new GateKeeper roller coaster, the story notes. (The Journal doesn't say it but I will — GateKeeper looks like it will be incredibly fun to ride.)Park spokesman Bryan Edwards tells the newspaper that guests also are eligible for the least expensive-available ticket price of $34 rather than $55. This week, the story notes, “Cedar Point introduced a payment plan option for guests, letting them spread out their lodging bill over four payments.” You also can follow me on Twitter for more news about business and Northeast Ohio. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3109 | Arthur Shawcross
The Crimes
In November 1990, Shawcross went on trial for the ten murders that had occurred in Monroe County, which included all victims except for Elizabeth Gibson, who had been killed in neighbouring Wayne County. The trial was a national media event, extensively televised and widely viewed.
Shawcross’ defence team tried to build a case based on an insanity plea, citing various mitigating factors, such as his upbringing, post-traumatic stress as a result of military service, a cyst on the brain, and a rare genetic defect: an extra Y chromosome in his genes that inclines those with this condition to violence.
The prosecution were quick to dispute the claims about his childhood and military service, casting doubts on Shawcross’ testimony. The physiological evidence about brain science and genetic factors was, at best, spurious and beyond the understanding of the jury. It was also hindered by poor presentation on the part of the expert witnesses called to testify.
Shawcross was found sane and guilty of 10 instances of second-degree murder. The judge sentenced him to 25 years for each count, a total of 250 years imprisonment. A few months later, Shawcross was taken to Wayne County to be tried for Elizabeth Gibson's murder. Rather than claim insanity this time, he pleaded guilty and received a further life sentence.
Shawcross was sent to serve his time at the Sullivan Correctional Facility in New York State.
Visit our other channels | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3149 | Nevada State Legislature Legalizes Online Poker
Nevada beats New Jersey to the punch
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed a bill into law this week that legalizes online poker in the absence of federal action. The Nevada Legislature fast-tracked the online gaming bill declaring it an emergency measure taking the bill to the Governor for signature on Thursday.
Both houses of the legislature voted unanimously to pass Assembly Bill 114, and the bill is expected to expand the customer base for Nevada casinos and should bring in a huge influx of cash.
Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval signed Bill 114 after is was fast tracked through the state Legislature. [Image Source: Watchdog]
“We’re going to do it now,” said Assembly Majority Leader William Horne, D-Las Vegas. “We’re going to beat New Jersey.”
Nevada is in a competition with New Jersey to become the country's online gaming hub. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill passed by his state legislature previously, but is expected to sign an amended bill next week.
“This is good-natured competition,” said Pete Ernaut, lobbyist for the Nevada Resort Association, in reference to New Jersey. “If we get there first, fantastic. If we get there within 24 to 48 hours, it’s not a big deal.”
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is rushing to put his state on equal footing with Nevada in online gambling. [Image Source: Getty Images]
One reason the bill is able to move forward so quickly was due to a compromise allowing the Nevada Gaming Commission to double the $500,000 online poker license fee to $1 million in certain circumstances.
Another caveat in the bill bans companies that illegally participated in online gaming between 2006 and 2011 for a period of five years.
Source: Las Vegas Sun "A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3188 | DRF.Com › Magna to push back financing hearing 03/31/2009 11:00PMMagna to push back financing hearingBy Matt Hegarty
EmailMagna Entertainment Corp. plans to ask a Delaware bankruptcy judge to put off by several weeks the consideration of several motions that are currently scheduled for a hearing on Friday, including the approval of a plan to auction off its properties, according to court filings and an official involved in the bankruptcy.
If the company's request is approved, a hearing to consider the motions, which have drawn objections from a handful of creditors and related parties, would likely be held in two to three weeks, according to the official, who did not wish to be identified because he is not authorized to speak on the issue. The official said that Magna wished to delay the hearing on the motions under consideration because several parties involved in the bankruptcy reorganization needed more time to formulate responses to the objections.
Hearings to consider motions in bankruptcy court are commonly delayed for a variety of reasons.
When Magna filed for bankruptcy on March 5, the company said that it had reached an agreement with its parent company, MI Developments, for $62.5 million in financing to help with its reorganization. In addition, the company asked the court to approve two separate plans to auction off its properties. One of the plans included an agreement whereby MI Developments would submit a $195 million stalking-horse bid for a bundle of Magna properties, including Gulfstream Park, Golden Gate Fields, Lone Star Park, AmTote, and XpressBet.
In a court filing on Wednesday listing the motions to be discussed on Friday, Magna said it expected to reach an agreement with the court to discuss amended motions at "a hearing date to be determined" and said that the company would file an amended agenda when those agreements were reached.
Objections to the motions were due on March 27. A number of entities, including Churchill Downs Inc., the state of Maryland, and Greenlight Capital, a large minority shareholder of MI Developments, filed objections. In particular, Greenlight filed a motion contending that the auction rules sought by Magna would have a "chilling" effect on bidding and effectively guarantee that MI Developments would buy the properties.
The bankruptcy court has already approved $13.4 million of the $62 million being sought by Magna from MI Developments, and Magna was seeking the remainder of the financing under the motion scheduled to be heard on Friday. Greenlight is among a number of parties to have objected to the financing agreement as well. Print | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3336 | Judge tosses case seeking rights for orcas
Wed Feb 8th, 2012 9:06pmNews By Julie Watson Associated Press
SAN DIEGO — An effort to free whales from SeaWorld by claiming they were enslaved made a splash in the news but flopped in court Wednesday.
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.
“As ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans,” Miller wrote in his ruling.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the lawsuit in October and named five whales as plaintiffs. PETA says the wild-captured orcas are enslaved by SeaWorld because they are held in concrete tanks against their will and forced to perform in shows at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla.
SeaWorld called the lawsuit baseless and a waste of the court’s time and money. Legal experts say it opened an interesting debate about the expansion of animal rights.
PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr says his organization does not plan to give up the fight to protect the orcas, but he did not specify the next action.
PETA is known for its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns to engage the court of public opinion.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld,” Kerr said in a statement. “PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve.”
SeaWorld denies any mistreatment of the animals and says its parks have raised awareness that has helped conservation efforts. It also says it has rescued orcas injured in the wild. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3456 | Do you want to advertise with us? Brandon J. Williams
Two South Biscayne Boulevard
2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 1900
http://www.foley.com
Overview Brandon J. Williams is an associate and business immigration lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. He has experience with business-related immigration issues, audits of employers' compliance with immigration and labor regulations, employment-based immigrant visa petitions, investment visas (both nonimmigrant and EB-5 immigrant visa petitions), labor certifications, and family-based immigrant visa petitions. He is a member of the Immigration, Nationality & Consular Law and Government & Public Policy Practices.
During law school, Mr. Williams served as an immigration clerk at Foley. Mr. Williams also gained extensive experience before entering law school as an immigration paralegal. Mr. Williams has experience assisting attorneys with matters in Immigration Court, before the Board of Immigration Appeals, and before the Federal District and Circuit Court of Appeals.
Beyond his legal experience, Mr. Williams has experience in the medical and biotechnology sector. During his undergraduate studies, he was a researcher with the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine where he worked on projects ranging from the testing of new medical devices to performing theoretical and experimental research related to the development of next generation artificial organs including artificial blood. Good to know
1) Immigration and 2) Nationality & Consular Law
the University of Pittsburgh (B.S. in 2006)
State Bar Of Florida | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3540 | Free Helplines Tax Credit Legal Feedback Companies & Sectors
Reliance Group seeks 16 more defence manufacturing licences
Going overdrive in the defence manufacturing space, Anil Ambani-led Reliance Group has applied for as many as 16 more licences in areas ranging from missiles to radar, barely two weeks after it got conditional nod for 12 requests to make aircraft, choppers and more.
"We have applied for these industrial licenses to manufacture defence equipment and hardware such as heavy weapons, ammunition, explosives, missiles, small arms, electronic warfare, armoured and amphibious vehicles, radars and unmanned aystems," an informed source said.
"The new facilities to come up in Gujrat and Maharashtra in a phased manner," the source added, requesting anonymity, since he was not authorised to speak to the media. "Once these 28 licenses are in place, we will create tens-of-thousands of thousands of highly skilled jobs."
Late last month, the government had approved conditionally 12 licences for the Reliance Group in this this area. These were part of approvals for 32 similar applications from other stakeholders, as per the list put up by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion.
The projects are to be executed by companies floated by Reliance Defence that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reliance Infrastructure. These will cover the entire spectrum of land, Naval and air systems, sources said.
Reliance Defence also has strategic plans to set up a maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrades of various platforms. The group is also in the process of acquiring Pipavav Defence an hopes to conclude the deal by the end of this year.
Reliance Defence has 11 subsidiaries in niche segments of the sector and chairman Anil Ambani had told shareholders recently that defence manufacturing and smart cities will be the future drivers of growth for the company.
The group is also pursuing partnerships with several leading international companies, besides looking at stakes in some existing firms in the country and outside to meet home-grown solutions for the sector.
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
TV's 'Breaking news' culture should end: Kerala speaker
The growing "Breaking News" culture in the broadcast media should end as it is impacting the society, Kerala assembly Speaker N. Sakthan said on Thursday.
"I wish to find out if there can be any law that is there or can be brought to rein in this sort of 'Breaking News' culture, which has now crossed all limits," Sakthan said.
The issue was first raised by state Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala in the assembly. "...TV news channels are coming out with statements made by accused in numerous cases and then these are aired as breaking news. This is atrocious because this affects political leaders, ministers and those who hold high offices," Chennithala said.
He was responding to the latest allegation of sleaze that came out on Wednesday when Biju Radhakrishnan, the prime accused in the solar scam case, testified before the judicial commission that he had with him video evidence of Saritha Nair, the second accused in the solar scam, in compromising position with Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and two other state ministers.
MG Warrier1 year ago
With reference to Kerala HM's observation that ""...TV news channels are coming out with statements made by accused in numerous cases and then these are aired as breaking news. This is atrocious because this affects political leaders, ministers and those who hold high offices," quoted here, I would like to request him and those having the same views to revisit Kautilya's ARTHASHAASTRA to know how an administrator should clean his image. Even if the 'breaking news' in TV Channels-some of them- qualify for being categorised as 'GOSSIPS', let us remember, THERE IS NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE!
Justice Thakur sworn-in as Chief Justice of India
Justice Tirath Singh Thakur was on Thursday sworn in as the 43rd Chief Justice of India. President Pranab Mukherjee administered him the oath of the office.
Thakur, who has a tenure of 13 months, succeeds Chief Justice H.L. Dattu, who demitted office on December 2. Chief Justice Thakur is slated to retire on January 3, 2017.
The swearing =-in ceremony was attended by Vice-president Hamid Ansari, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, leader of main opposition party Congress in the Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad among others. The swearing-in ceremony was also attended by former Supreme Court chief justices Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice A.S. Anand, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice S.H. Kapadia, and Justice R.M. Lodha. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3578 | George Will: Judicial activism is sometimes necessary | New Hampshire Contact us
May 04. 2013 3:17AM
George Will: Judicial activism is sometimes necessary
"The legislative department is everywhere extending the sphere of its activity, and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex."- James Madison, Federalist 48BUT UNDER today's regulatory state, which Madison could hardly have imagined, the legislature, although still a source of much mischief, is not the principal threat to liberty. Suppose a federal executive department flagrantly abused its regulatory powers for the unmistakable purpose of suppressing truthful speech that annoys the government. If you assume the Supreme Court would rectify this assault on the First Amendment's core protection, you would be mistaken.The government has done this and the court has declined to do its duty to enforce constitutional limits. Herewith an illustration of why conservatives must abandon their imprecise opposition to "judicial activism" and advocate for more vigorous judicial engagement in protecting liberty from the vortex of the regulatory state.Spirit, Allegiant and Southwest are low-cost carriers that have thrived since the deregulation of the airline industry, which began in 1978. The government retains a narrow authority to prevent deceptive advertising practices. But as the airlines argued in petitioning the Supreme Court to hear their case, the government is micromanaging their speech merely to prevent the public from understanding the government's tax burdens.The government's Total Price Rule forbids the airlines from calling attention to the tax component of the price of a ticket by listing the price the airline charges and then the tax component with equal prominence. The rule mandates that any listing of the tax portion of a ticket's price "not be displayed prominently and be presented in significantly smaller type than the listing of the total price." The government is trying to prevent people from clearly seeing the burdens of government.These three low-cost carriers compete for the most price-conscious travelers, and want to tell those travelers which portion of a ticket's cost the airlines control. The government, far from regulating to prevent customer confusion, is trying to prevent customers from understanding the taxes and fees that comprise approximately 20 percent of the average airline ticket.Timothy Sandefur, of the public-interest, limited-government Pacific Legal Foundation, notes that decades ago the Supreme Court, without justification in the Constitution's text, structure or history, created a binary First Amendment. So today the amendment gives different degrees of protection to two kinds of speech - strong protection to political speech, minimal protection to commercial speech.The court has never clearly defined the latter but has suggested that commercial speech proposes a commercial transaction between the speaker and the audience. And the court has held that freedom of commercial speech cannot be abridged if the speech is neither false nor deceptive nor related to an illegal activity.Note two things. The airlines' speech the government is regulating with the Total Price Rule would be protected even if it were just commercial speech. And it actually is political speech: It calls its audience's attention to, and invites disapproval of, government policy.In permitting the government's regulation of this speech, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held, 2-1, that the Total Price Rule "does not prohibit airlines from saying anything; it just requires them to disclose the total, final price and to make it the most prominent figure in their advertisements." But this ignores the government's obvious purpose of preventing the airlines from drawing attention to the government's exactions.In their brief asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit's decision, the airlines noted that the government is forbidding them to do what virtually every American industry does - advertise the pre-tax price of their products. Shirts and shoes and salamis are sold with the pre-tax sum on the price tag.D.C. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, dissenting from the court's permission of this unauthorized and indefensible regulation, asked: How can the government's supposed interest in consumers having "accurate" information be served by requiring "significantly smaller" typefaces for taxes and fees that make up a larger share of the prices of the low-cost airlines than of the older airlines? Randolph said the government's purpose is "to control and to muffle speakers who are critical of the government."Government is violating one of the natural rights that the Founders said government is "instituted" (the Declaration's word) to protect. This episode confirms conservatism's premise that today's government is guilty of shabby behavior until proven innocent. And conservatives enable such behavior when their unreflective denunciations of judicial "activism" encourage excessive judicial deference toward the modern executive's impetuous vortex.George Will is a columnist for Newsweek in Washington, D.C., and a commentator for ABC News.. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3640 | Learn More About Civil Litigation Defense in Detroit, Texas Homecivil litigation defensetexasdetroit
Detroit is a town in Red River County, Texas, United States. The population was 776 at the 2000 census. John Nance Garner, 32nd Vice President of the United States, was born outside of Detroit but lived most of his life in Uvalde on the southern rim of the Texas Hill Country. Ross Junior Spencer (born in Detroit in 1933) is a retired leader of Independent Baptists in Texas who in 1973 founded Bethany Baptist Church in Lubbock. Civil Litigation Defense Lawyers In Detroit Texas
What is civil litigation defense?
Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals and/or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim. For instance, if a car crash victim claims damages against the driver for loss or injury sustained in an accident, this will be a civil law case. Civil law courts provide a forum for deciding disputes involving torts (such as accidents, negligence, and libel), contract disputes, the probate of wills, trusts, property disputes, administrative law, commercial law, and any other private matters that involve private parties or organizations including government departments. The objectives of civil law are different from other types of law. In civil law there is the attempt to right a wrong, honor an agreement, or settle a dispute. If there is a victim, they get compensation, and the person who is the cause of the wrong pays, this being a civilized form of, or legal alternative to, revenge.
Answers to civil litigation defense issues in Texas
Federal court opinions concerning civil litigation defense in Texas
608 F2d 1114 Clairol Inc v. Boston Discount Center of Berkley Inc
608 F2d 254 Estate Rath Detroit Bank and Trust Company v. United States
608 F2d 265 General Electric Company v. Valeron Corporation
609 F2d 1194 Eildon Security Patrol Service Inc v. United States Internal Revenue Service
609 F2d 240 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan v. National Labor Relations Board
609 F2d 248 Wells v. 10-X Manufacturing Company
610 F2d 914 Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
611 F2d 1295 Local No 3-193 International Woodworkers of America v. Ketchikan Pulp Company
611 F2d 137 Himmler v. Califano Hew
Homecivil litigation defensetexasdetroit | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3727 | HOW WILL PUBLIC BODIES COPE WITH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION?
Features: November 26th, 2004 How will Public Bodies Cope With Freedom of Information ?
By Ian Quanstrom
In recent months some of the most respected observers and commentators of the IT industry have quite rightly thrown doubt on the ability of public sector institutions to prepare for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act in time for the 1st of January 2005 deadline.
With this day fast approaching it is still difficult to predict what the demand for information will be and, although it is a challenge to foresee the full extent of the impact of this change, most organisations will be telling staff to assume that all the documents and e-mails they write will be disclosable.
Preparing to disclose
If one was to observe in great detail the public sector’s approach to the FOIA, and compliance with it, it would become evident that although certain strategies have been put in place by the majority of these bodies, they have in many cases failed to incorporate a procedure for the recording of paper-based documents into their considerations.
Recent research suggests that only 17% of local authorities have set aside a percentage of their budget to implement electronic systems designed to help with the dawn of the FOIA. Many will be adopting a ‘wait and see’ approach to the ramifications of non-compliance with the Act, so that organisational decision making can be applied to any problems as and when they arise. A lack of resources, or a reluctance to invest in technology that will ultimately fail to satisfy the FOIA requirements, is typically at the root of such attitudes.
What is certain is that organisations have and will be seeking expert insight as to how they can pre-empt or minimise the negative effects of failing to meet their new obligations. They will be looking for informative and practical advice to guide them in the measures that can be taken to avoid a crisis in January next year.
With every corner of the public sector being impacted, from health to local government authorities in England and Wales, some organisations are bound to be panicking about the approaching cut-off date.
Other pressures, such as the terms of compliance with the Data Protection Act and various eGovernment agendas, are adding another dimension to the confusion with budgets being placed under increasing strain and possible contradictions beginning to emerge. Practical considerations concerning technical, operational and systems change and the associated administrative costs involved are building up into what must be a phenomenal challenge.
Managing information
In January, internal procedures concerning information management will suddenly become a top priority for organisations in a way that they never have been before, with the frailties of the previous systems becoming all too obvious. A lack of centralised document oversight, standardised naming conventions and logical file structures will be exposed as this latest legislation ushers in a new era in how we record, handle and disseminate information.
Undoubtedly the installation of archive, search and retrieval systems that are FOIA compliant could make a tremendous difference to an organisation’s capacity to handle the potential demands that will be brought about by this legislation when it comes into full effect in the New Year. This includes the everyday documentation that feeds data-driven transactions and forms the paper trail that can provide key evidence in any ongoing investigation or transaction adjudication. When this information is lost, complete data records simply cannot exist.
To ensure their continuity plans are complete, public sector institutions would be well advised to invest in the relevant paper scanning and archiving applications. The technology does not have to stretch budgets and can provide a targeted solution for the new challenges that lie ahead in the light of the FOIA coming into force.
Widespread adoption of this technology, the right software for each organisation’s individual needs, would represent a much overdue sea-change in attitudes to methods of storing and retrieving information. It would help to speed up and improve local services on a day-to-day operational level, independently of the challenges posed by FOIA compliance.
We must also not forget that the commercial world will also be affected by the Act. It is a potentially huge issue for anyone sending information to a public sector institution as it may be accessed by the public at large and by anyone in the world, whether that is a lobby group, the press, a campaigner or even a competitor.
The challenge of moving to transparency
The Act’s real challenge is changing the mindset of those who run and monitor the day-to-day activities of public sector organisations from one of non-disclosure to total transparency as the masses track what civil servants, council officials and others are doing on their behalf.
In the long term, as decision-making processes are made clearer to the public, the goal of developing more accountable and responsive public sector services will be realised. The time and expense of ensuring compliance, through the installation of the right systems for the task, will be worth the final result.
In many ways the hurdle that must be overcome is a psychological one, as government institutions begins to shift their dependence on physical documents to advanced software, gradually building their faith in this brave new world of electronic document management.
Ian Quanstrom is Managing Director of ZyLAB UK. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3757 | In coming weeks, late-term abortion law in Kansas may finally be enforced
In coming weeks, late-term abortion law in Kansas may finally be enforced DIARY / Benjamin Hodge // Posted at 8:35 am on January 12, 2011 by Benjamin Hodge
The Kansas City Star dishonestly writes about upcoming bills as “tighter restrictions” on abortions. The truth: there are effectively no restrictions!
Since 1998, there has been in place a law banning late-term abortions. This law affects post-21 week pregnancies, when the unborn child can very likely survive outside the womb (and therefore can also feel pain. But because of Governor Bill Graves, Governor Kathleen Sebelius, and the Kansas Supreme Court — which is appointed by unaccountable lawyers, not by the people — the law has not been enforced. In one case, documents show that a pregnant mother who wanted to attend a rodeo and was inconvenienced by a pregnancy was allowed a “mental health” exception, when no mental health exception is supposed to exist, at all.
With hope, in just a matter of weeks, unborn children who can survive outside the womb will be protected under Kansas law.
Trending Media Very Concerned About Whether Sadistic Killer Might Have Coughed During His Execution
Patterico ______________________
Connect with Benjamin Hodge at Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, The Kansas Progress, and LibertyLinked. Hodge is President of the State and Local Reform Group of Kansas. He served as one of seven at-large trustees at Johnson County Community College from 2005-’09, a member of the Kansas House from 2007-’08, a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party from 2009-’10, and was founder of the Overland Park Republican Party in 2011. His public policy record is recognized by Americans for Prosperity, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government, the NRA, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).
redstate.com Congress should hold hearings on Russia’s interference in the election - Hot Air
hotair.com Ditching Electoral College Would Allow California to Impose Imperial Rule on a Colonial America | Human Events
humanevents.com 'Fixed it for you': Nate Silver's claim about what cost Hillary the election gets 'stated differently' | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3876 | Court rules negative notice in teacher's file can stay
Bryce Alderton
The Laguna Beach Unified School District does not need to remove a note from a teacher's personnel file that alleges she arrived at school drunk in December 2010, an Orange County Superior Court judge ruled this week.In his ruling, Judge Andrew Banks said Barbara Joan McKnight needed to prove that the school district's notice of unprofessional conduct "was arbitrary, capricious or entirely lacking in evidence, i.e. that the board action in issuing the notice was an abuse of discretion," according to a court document provided by McKnight's attorney, James Guziak.
Banks ruled Tuesday that he did not find that to be the case, writing that the school district was lawful in placing a notice in McKnight's file, said Daniel Spradlin, the school district's attorney."There was no abuse or improper action by the school district," Spradlin said.The Orange County Register first reported the story.McKnight was and is currently a science teacher at Laguna Beach High School. She denies the allegation, citing personal reasons for arriving late to school the morning of Dec. 10, 2010.On that day, district administrators accused McKnight of arriving at school under the influence of alcohol and being insubordinate, according to a claim filed in Superior Court last November."McKnight did not come to school under the influence of alcohol, was not under the influence of alcohol at work and did not otherwise act unprofessionally," according to her claim.Guziak sent a letter in January 2011 to the school board that said McKnight's brother was "gravely ill" and she was dealing with this and "other issues of compelling personal interest well into the evening of Dec. 9, 2010. She overslept the next morning and having done so, called about why she would be late."She was told an investigator would be hired, she [McKnight] would be interviewed, students would be interviewed, but none of those things happened."Whether McKnight suffered a violation of her due process rights will be argued during a trial scheduled for Nov. 4, according to Guziak and Spradlin."We say there is a policy that mandates investigation into claims of harassment," Guziak said. "We'll be arguing her privacy was violated and this was all part of a campaign to retaliate against her for whistle blowing she did to school board members about [then Principal Don Austin]. The important thing is that there has been no court ruling on the accuracy of the intoxication claim."Spradlin has filed a motion for summary judgment, in which a judge determines whether there are enough issues of fact to warrant a trial, he said. A judge is scheduled to rule on the motion Aug. 20.
Orange County Superior Court | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/3999 | A truck driver who was involved in a fatal July crash on I-55 near Chicago has pleaded not guilty to charges related to falsifying his logbooks, but reckless homicide charges are still possible in the crash that killed five.
According to published reports, prosecutors are still awaiting the results of investigations by the Illinois State Police before deciding further charges against Francisco Espinal-Quiroz, an owner-operator who has been held on $1 million bond since the July 21 crash.
Espinal-Quiroz allegedly changed lanes abruptly and hit several vehicles stopped in a construction zone. He allegedly was speeding in the construction zone.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration suspended the company's operating authority after it was refused access to company records following the crash.
Another factor that has been raised, according to Chicago-area TV station ABC7, is that Espinal-Quiroz reportedly has significantly limited vision in one eye and that he did not have a current exemption as required on his CDL.
Espinal-Quiroz's attorney emphasized that the investigation is still ongoing on both sides and filed a motion asking that devices and evidence be preserved.
Attorney Sarah Toney is a criminal defense attorney but does not specialize in transportation or trucking. She is editor of the newsletter Traffic Laws and Courts Section of the Illinois State Bar and is a member of the National College for DUI Defense.
Tags: Hours of Service, Illinois, I-55
Walmart Ordered to Pay $54 Million in Driver Pay Lawsuit
Celebrating Strong Women in Trucking
Arizona to Test Work Zone Notification, Quicker Safety Inspections | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4062 | Judge says pregnant women can bar fathers from delivery room
Updated: Mar 14, 2014 - 7:07 AM
NEW JERSEY - Some dads-to-be could be kept out of the delivery room in New Jersey. In a decision released this week, a judge ruled pregnant women can block the biological father of their children from entering the room.
"The ruling stems from the case of a couple who got engaged after the woman became pregnant, but later broke up. That father sued for the right to be present at the birth of the child, though a judge disagreed."
That's according to Superior Court Judge Sohail Mohammed. The case started back in November when Steven Plotnick sued to get Rebecca DeLuccia to inform him when she went into labor. He wanted access to the baby when it was born.
The two went to court the same day DeLuccia went into labor and gave birth to a baby girl. Mohammed ruled that day all patients, including pregnant women, can decide who can be at their hospital bedside. The decision was released on Monday.
The Star-Ledger explains Mohammed based his opinion on two landmark abortion cases — Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Mohammed wrote, "Any interest a father has before the child’s birth is subordinate to the mother’s interests" since it's the woman carrying the baby to term.
NPR's Jennifer Ludden explains, "The judge ruled that requiring the father's presence would pose 'unwarranted strain' on the mother."
"It's just safer in general to have people the mother is most comfortable with to be in the room there with her."
Essentially, the decision asserts a father has no legal right to be in the delivery room. But not everyone agrees. Some groups say the ruling is discriminating against fathers, making it seem that they are nothing more than visitors.
“It’s a sad day for fathers, and for father’s and men’s rights ... The way we look at it is a child is born, a child had two parents and they should be two equal parents.”
According to Headlines and Global News, Plotnick will not appeal the decision. He was able to see the baby soon after she was born. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4104 | Special Weapons for Fighting Giants
Revoke their charters, and other legal tools to hold corporations accountable to our laws.
Anti-coal photographer and activist Mark Schmerling brought his photo of Massey Energy’s destruction of Kayford Mountain to an EPA hearing in Philadelphia. Delaware Attorney General Joseph R. “Beau” Biden is being urged to decharter Massey because of the company’s reckless history. Photo courtesy of Rainforest Action Network.
Robert Weissman posted Mar 14, 2012
The last few years have seen a series of corporate catastrophes, for which the perpetrator companies have escaped any meaningful accountability. Big banks and giant Wall Street firms tricked and ripped off homeowners and investors, and crashed the national and global economy. BP’s reckless operations poisoned the Gulf of Mexico in one of the worst oil disasters in history. Massey Energy’s cost-cutting led to the Upper Big Branch coal mine collapse that killed 29 workers.
There have been virtually no criminal prosecutions for Wall Street wrongdoing related to the crash, and precious few civil actions. Criminal charges are likely to be filed against BP, but the company already has been granted new permits to drill for oil in the Gulf. Massey Energy—now owned by Alpha Natural Resources—was forced to pay $200 million in penalties but avoided any criminal prosecution.
This history notwithstanding, We the People, and our government representatives, do have the power to hold companies accountable for the wrongs they commit. The challenge is to mobilize sufficient political pressure to demand that available tools be used and new mechanisms of accountability be created. One powerful way to hold companies accountable is through debarment—denying corporate wrongdoers the right to obtain government contracts. Almost every major company does significant business with the government, so debarment is a penalty with teeth. Similarly, federal, state, and local governments should deny other government benefits to corporate criminals and wrongdoers. Denying BP the right to drill in the Gulf is a penalty that would sting. Drug companies that can’t sell to Medicare, Medicaid, and the Department of Veterans Affairs are deprived of more than a third of their market. The Federal Communications Commission has the authority to deny broadcast licenses to media corporations that do not exhibit “good character.” Federal and state governments do frequently debar companies, but typically only smaller firms that engage in massive fraud or operate as criminal enterprises.
Charter revocation effectively constitutes the death penalty for a
corporation. Even occasional use would be a major deterrent to
corporate wrongdoing.
A second tool to discipline corporate wrongdoers is charter revocation. Establishing a new corporation requires that a state government grant a charter to operate. (This is typically a perfunctory requirement, as evidenced by the state of Virginia’s grant of a charter to Licensed to Kill, Inc., a company whose articles of incorporation state that it will engage in “manufactur[ing] and marketing of tobacco products in a way that each year kills over 400,000 Americans and 4.5 million other persons worldwide.”) State governments have the right to revoke charters from companies that do not serve the public interest. Free Speech for People has petitioned Delaware to revoke the charter of Massey Energy. Charter revocation effectively constitutes the death penalty for a corporation. Even occasional use against large corporations would be a major deterrent to corporate wrongdoing.
A third form of control on corporate wrongdoing is civil litigation. Lawsuits against corporate wrongdoers not only afford victims an opportunity to receive some compensation for the harms they have suffered, they work to strip corporations of ill-gotten gains. The civil justice system is a vital deterrent to corporate misconduct, because it means corporations will at least sometimes be forced to pay for the harms they cause. And lawsuits provide direct justice to victims of corporate wrongdoing, without the need to persuade government officials to act. In many ways, the U.S. civil justice system is the most important form of corporate accountability we have.
It’s for exactly these reasons that corporations have worked for decades to undermine the functioning of the civil justice system, making it harder to file cases, interfering with the ability of victims to join together in class actions, making it harder for victims to obtain evidence, capping the damages that victims may recover, limiting punitive damages, and forcing victims out of the civil justice system (real courts) and into arbitration tribunals biased to favor giant corporations.
In recent years, organizations like EarthRights International and the Center for Constitutional Rights have innovated new ways to hold corporations accountable in U.S. courts for harms perpetrated overseas, relying especially on a law passed in 1789 called the Alien Tort Claims Act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has responded with a campaign to foreclose such litigation.
Who Really Gets Burned With Tort Reform?It's not about protecting ordinary people. It's about the profits of the people and corporations who cause injuries.
In addition to using these and other corporate accountability tools already at our disposal, we need more. Among other things, we need to significantly strengthen the penalties for corporate endangerment of people’s lives and well-being. In many instances, there is no criminal penalty applicable for recklessly putting consumers’ or workers’ lives at risk by knowingly selling dangerous pharmaceuticals or defective cars or by exposing workers to deadly toxic chemicals or other hazards. A law that would make it a felony to recklessly endanger consumers or workers, with stiff fines and sanctions for companies and jail time for responsible corporate management, would make our world safer and restrain corporate misconduct.
We live in a time of massive disparity between penalties for street criminals and corporate wrongdoers. Corporations, which claim all the rights of “persons,” are subjected to much weaker punishments than real people. It doesn’t have to be.
Cities, churches, and colleges take steps to move their money home.What we can do right now to strengthen our democracy.Where the infamous Citizens United decision came from and how to overturn it.
Robert Weissman wrote this article for 9 Strategies to End Corporate Rule. Robert is president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy and corporate accountability organization based in Washington, D.C.
Watch Us Move Our Millions4 Ways to Flex Our Electoral MusclesRights are for Real People | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4151 | The Business Ethics Blog A blog about Business Ethics by Chris MacDonald, Ph.D. Blog
Business Ethics Highlights
Subscribe to the Business Ethics Blog
Business Obligations During Natural Disasters
Filed under: corporate citizenship, disaster, employees, philanthropy, safety | As Hurricane Sandy bears down on Atlantic City, New York, and (eventually) parts of eastern Canada, thousands of businesses large and small are faced with dilemmas related to doing business before, during, and after a potential state of disaster. Certainly some businesses won’t have a choice, as flooding either wipes them out or makes access impossible. The NYSE and Nasdaq have both made the unusual move of staying closed for the day today (Monday).
But others will have hard choices to make, and no easy formula for making such choices is at hand.
Choice #1 pertains to the basic issue of staying open. Here, business owners need to balance the safety and security of their employees and buildings, on one hand, with the needs of their customers on the other. The weight given to the needs of customers must of course depend on just what you’re selling. If you sell water and flashlight batteries, a sense of social obligation ought to keep you open ‘as long as possible.’
The second choice has to do with the closely related question of whether businesses should require employees to work before, during, and after a natural disaster. Sometimes being at work will pose risks to health and safety, and sometimes the risk lies in getting to work. The transit closures that go with severe weather are a factor here, too. Lack of access to public transit can make it difficult, and sometimes dangerous, for employees to get to work. But then again, in some cases employees — especially ones earning an hourly wage — will prefer to work, in which case telling them to go home may be overly paternalistic.
The third question is about prices. In a reasonably free market, prices tend to go up when goods are scarce and when demand is high. And natural disasters have a way of both limiting supply and raising demand. As supply chains get cut off, it may be reasonable for businesses to raise prices somewhat in order to cover additional costs. But stores need to be careful to stay on the right side of the law — most jurisdictions have anti-price gouging laws that put limits on just how much you can raise prices in the wake of disaster.
All three choices involve difficult decisions about how to balance the competing interests of various groups. But in terms of fundamental motivation, it’s also worth pointing out that staying in business as long as possible can be a great way to build goodwill. A business that is there for its community in times of crisis is likely to reap rewards for a long time to come.
The business I happen to work for — Ryerson University — is an unusual kind of business when it comes to questions like these. I asked our VP Administration & Finance, Julia Hanigsberg, about the criteria Ryerson uses to decide whether and when to close. “The safety of our community is the primary consideration on whether to close the university or cancel classes during extreme weather conditions or other emergency situations,” Hanigsberg told me. “Our Integrated Threat and Risk Assessment team monitors the situation by scanning publicly available sources and consulting with expertise available in the broader public sector about road conditions, availability of public transit, information from Emergency Services etc.” One particularly interesting point that Hanigsberg made had to do with the fact that, really, the university never fully shuts down. Hanigsberg says: “Unlike most businesses, even when we ‘close’ the university is operational 24/7 with students in residence, research labs operational etc.” The same is true for hospitals, of course, as well as other public services like shelters. But the same is true for businesses such as hotels and kennels and airports. Anything charged with the 24/7 sheltering and feeding of humans or animals — is unlikely to shut down entirely. The same obviously goes for essential services, such as police, fire, and ambulance. They’re not businesses in the traditional sense, but they face the same dilemmas, albeit with a much stronger public service impetus pushing them to keep the wheels turning.
The inability to shut down entirely brings special obligations, of course. For starters, it puts a premium on planning for disasters. Businesses that can’t shut down need to have plans in place, and need to train employees both in safeguarding their own health and safety, and in looking out for the customers who may be entrusted to their care in the most trying, and ethically challenging, of circumstances.
Share this:ShareTwitterTumblrLinkedInFacebookEmailPrintPinterestLike this:Like Loading... « ‘Do Your Best’ in The Tangle of Global Business
Storms, Global Warming, and Corporate Citizenship »
1 comment so far “Business Obligations During Natural Disasters” – Recommended Business Ethics Blog by Chris MacDonald | Ethics Alive – Business Ethics Speaker Chuck Gallagher shares Ethics Alive
October 30, 2012 […] The blog Chris wrote is worth a read and can be found here. […]
Chris MacDonald, Ph.D., is an educator, speaker, and consultant in the realm of business ethics. He teaches at the Ted Rogers School of Management, at Ryerson University in Toronto, where he is Director of the Jim Pattison Ethical Leadership Education & Research Program, at the
Ted Rogers Leadership Centre.
Chris is currently Interim Director of the Ted Rogers MBA at Ryerson.
He is also a Senior Fellow at Duke University's Kenan Institute for Ethics. Chris has three times been declared one of the "Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trustworthy Business Behavior", and has several times been named one of the "100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics". He has been writing The Business Ethics Blog since November of 2005. The blog is now exclusively syndicated by Canadian Business magazine.
Business ethics professors say The Business Ethics Blog is...
"...the best thing that ever happened to Business Ethics courses...clear and intelligent presentation of the real ethical stakes behind the current headlines..."
[Prof. Wayne Norman, Duke University] "...one of the best destinations on the web to send students for fascinating and timely analyses of cutting-edge issues ..."
[Prof. Laura Hartman, DePaul University]
Chris MacDonald is now Contributing Editor for Emtrain's Code of Conduct training course:
Trump, and Why Corruption Matters
Business Needs to Let Government Lead on Education
When Should Apology Be Followed by a Change in Policy?
The 2016 Rio Olympics were a great sporting event, and an ethical mess
Why corporate diversity programs fail, and what to do about it
About Chris MacDonald,Ph.D.
BusinessEthics.ca
Business Ethics Speakers Series
My Biotech Ethics Blog
My Food Ethics Blog
The Research Ethics Blog
Ethics of Complementary & Alternative Medicine
Other Business Ethics / CSR Blogs
Subscribe to e-mail notification of new postings.
Welcome, Students! (advice for students using this blog)
The EthicsWeb Bookstore
Chris MacDonald, Ethics Consultant
Business Ethics Journal Review | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4368 | « Back to News Print This Topics
Admissions 'Before Brown' When people talk about the demolition of the doctrine of "separate but equal," the case everyone focuses on is Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1954 ruling. Four years earlier, however, the Supreme Court rejected that doctrine in a higher education case -- one that set the legal framework for Brown and helped shape the strategy of Thurgood Marshall in his assault on Jim Crow in education. By Scott Jaschik September 8, 2010 Comments When people talk about the demolition of the doctrine of "separate but equal," the case everyone focuses on is Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1954 ruling. Four years earlier, however, the Supreme Court rejected that doctrine in a higher education case -- one that set the legal framework for Brown and helped shape the strategy of Thurgood Marshall in his assault on Jim Crow in education. The case was Sweatt v. Painter, in which the court ordered the admission of Heman M. Sweatt, a black man, to the law school at the University of Texas at Austin. Sweatt's lawsuit exposed the extent of the inequalities in Texas higher education. When he sued, the state had no law school at all for black people, and in an attempt to defend "separate but equal," Texas quickly created one. (It is now the law school of historically black Texas Southern University and is named for Marshall.) But the Supreme Court pointed out all that the new law school lacked, including the participation of the students and faculty members one would encounter at Texas -- and rejected "separate but equal."Before Brown: Heman Marion Sweatt, Thurgood Marshall and the Long Road to Justice (University of Texas Press) tells the story of that case. The author is Gary M. Lavergne, who is director of admissions research at the University of Texas at Austin. He recently responded via e-mail to questions about his new book.Q: Given that Sweatt v. Painter rejected "separate but equal," why do you think it has received relatively little attention compared to Brown v. Board of Education?A: Because Brown was such a milestone in the history of our country, and civil rights in particular, it simply overwhelmed Sweatt, which was ruled upon only four years earlier. Brown was emphatic: "...separate is inherently unequal..." but like all milestones, especially in legal history, it was made possible by the events that preceded it. In my view the story of Heman Marion Sweatt is the most underappreciated piece of the remarkable story of the demise of legal racial segregation.Q: Do you think Sweatt v. Painter made the Brown decision inevitable? Was "separate but equal" actually killed before Brown?A: Justice Tom Clark, one of the justices who ruled on both Brown and Sweatt, said, "In fact, not in Brown as people say, did we overrule [the separate-but-equal doctrine in] Plessy. We implicitly overruled Plessy in Sweatt." But in Sweatt the Court did so in a subtle way. Separate-but-equal became moribund when they did two things: First, they said that Heman Sweatt could not be separated from the people (and their ideas) he would have to interact with when he became a lawyer. The only possible remedy was admitting blacks to all-white institutions. Second, the Court said that "separate equality" was more than just tangible measures like the number of books, buildings, money, and number of faculty. It was also "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement" like the reputation of the school and its faculty, the influence of the alumni, and all of the "social and cultural capital" we read about today in books about access. Chief Justice Vinson knew very well that it was impossible to create a separate law school for African Americans, where none had existed before, with equal intangibles like the "position and influence of the alumni" with "traditions and prestige." Thus, they made separate equality in professional schools a practical impossibility. Sweatt made Brown possible insofar as at the time of Sweatt the Court seemed not quite willing to take the final unambiguous step they took only four years later. But they settled for making legal racial segregation in graduate and professional schools impossible.Q: The University of Texas has continued over the years to debate issues of race -- with the Hopwood decision, with the recent move to rename a dormitory that honored a Klan leader. How has Sweatt shaped the university? Do people at the university know enough about the case?A: It is my observation that, with the exception of a few classes in some law schools, a negligible number of people, especially in higher education, really appreciate the significance of Sweatt v. Painter. The University of Texas at Austin has a Division of Diversity and Community Engagement that sponsors an annual Heman Sweatt Symposium on Civil Rights and the part of the campus where the Undergraduate Admissions Center is located is called the Sweatt Campus. I know from direct experience that Sweatt's ideals guide the operations of both of those offices. On the other hand, Texas and UT Austin are not unlike other states and institutions: on occasion we are haunted by the vestiges of our unfortunate history when it comes to race. On many occasions I've said to students that wisdom is not possible without studying history -- to believe otherwise is to think wisdom is a psychic phenomenon. So, I wanted to create literature that makes us wiser, and the story of Heman Sweatt was an ideal choice.Q: Do you see implications in the history of Sweatt for the debates over affirmative action today?A: The Sweatt story is more than an interesting historical artifact. Indeed, it continues to guide us. My friend, Jonathan Alger, the general counsel of Rutgers University, recently wrote that the Sweatt case foreshadowed the current argument we are having, articulated in Bakke (1978) and then in Grutter (2003), that there are educational benefits for all students when they are exposed to a diversity of ideas, and access to ideas is a constitutional right. In Bakke, the Supreme Court used Sweatt to condemn the isolation of individuals from ideas; in Grutter, it was used to argue that since higher education was the training ground for the nation's leaders, it had to be visibly open to individuals of every race and ethnicity in order to "...cultivate a set of leaders with legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry... ." Arguably, the "intangibles" in Sweatt, those things that cannot be objectively measured but make for greatness in a law school, bear a resemblance to Justice O'Connor's insistence that applicants not be subjected to a rigid, merely "mechanical" admissions process. In both cases the exclusive use "objective" measures give way to holistic approaches.Q: The history of desegregation in higher education has been accompanied by concerns about historically black colleges. As your book notes, this case resulted in the creation of a historically black law school -- and the Legislature cut the budget for black colleges after the Supreme Court's decision. Are there lessons in the history of this case for black colleges today?A: This is such a great story: The Thurgood Marshall School of Law, the "House that Sweatt Built," was named the most diverse law school in the nation three consecutive years by U.S. News & World Report. It is named after the person who fought hardest to prevent its creation. The single richest lesson I learned while investigating the Sweatt case is that I grossly underappreciated how divided the African American community was in Sweatt's time over issues like integration. There were black leaders who clearly feared what impact victories in Sweatt and Brown would have on significant African American social structures, neighborhoods and schools especially. I think present-day discussions about the missions of the historically black colleges are a continuation of that debate. During the preparation of my manuscript, in all of my discussions with African American scholars, lawyers, and clergy, the subject of the role of historically-black institutions came up, and this is one of those rare instances where everyone on all sides has a good point to make. I might add that in spite of the internal divisions among African Americans I described above, the Sweatt case brought the black community together: they all agreed that if Heman Marion Sweatt wanted to go to the University of Texas, he should be able to go.Q: Not many people in university admissions publish several scholarly books. How have you managed your career to do so?A: I get asked that all the time ... and the answer is rather unromantic. Some people play music or do art, some do woodworking while others play golf, some travel, and still others read for enjoyment. I enjoy all of those things, but not while I am writing books. After I decide on a topic it takes up a minimum of three years of all of my evenings, weekends, free time, and vacations. That's not as bad as it sounds; I enjoy it. It helps that my wife is in admissions and is a writer and my editor who has a great deal to say about everything I write. Also, while at work the best friends I have on campus are lawyers. I often go home at the end of a day inspired by their expertise and passion. In the admissions profession, I don't know of many officers anywhere who spend a lot of time studying their institution's darkest days; we market the opposite. I found it very helpful. The truth is that in February of 1946 the University of Texas rejected a law school applicant for no other reason than because he was black. At the same time we have to remember that Heman Marion Sweatt eventually came to the University of Texas, and was just as much a Longhorn as anyone else. Sweatt had a thousand reasons not to come here, but he came anyway. He was what a Longhorn should be because he made it easier, though not easy, for everybody that has ever come after him. He made us a better institution. And therein lies a character worth studying. Read more by
Scott Jaschik jump to comments | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4389 | Banking & Finance Law Blog
Is the FDIC Staking Out Its Territory or Extending Its Borders? Related Articles
ACH Compliance Webinar: Understanding Regulations that Affect ACH Transactions
FDIC Files Libor Manipulation Lawsuit for Alleged Harm to Failed Banks
FDIC: Banks Improve, Number of Problem Institutions Continues to Decline Cornerstone Research: FDIC Lawsuits Continue to Mount, Individuals Contributing Out-of-Pocket to FDIC Claims Settlements Related Publications
Bernard L. Madoff Invesment Securities
Dodd-Frank bill
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform & Consumer Protection Act
Investment Advisers Act
Ponzi scheme sentencing
private equity fund managers
registration requirement
Scott Rothstein
Sheshunoff
Zeek Rewards
08:03 AM Author: Kevin M. LaCroix
Is the FDIC Staking Out Its Territory or Extending Its Borders? With one lone exception, the FDIC has not yet itself pursued litigation against the directors and officers of a failed financial institution. However, the FDIC has already made it clear that it intends to assert its rights under FIRREA as the receiver of failed banks to take control of shareholders' derivative lawsuits.
More recently, and perhaps more aggressively, the FDIC is now attempting to intervene in two direct shareholder actions where failed institutions' aggrieved investors are asserting their own claims, rather than derivatively asserting those of the failed institution. These more recent moves may represent efforts not just to assert but to extend the FDIC's litigation preclusion rights. The FDIC's actions are interesting in and of themselves, but also for what the FDIC has claimed in asserting its rights.
The FDIC's most recent move in this direction is its October 4, 2010 motion to intervene in the Haven Trust Bancorp securities class action litigation pending in the Northern District of Georgia. A copy of the FDIC's memorandum in support of its motion to intervene can be found here. Haven Trust Bancorp was the parent corporation for Haven Trust Bank, a Duluth, Georgia failed bank of which the FDIC took control on December 12, 2008.
The FDIC has previously moved to intervene in the negligent misrepresentation lawsuit that individual investors had filed in Fulton County (Georgia) State Court against certain former directors and officers of Georgian Bancorp. A copy of the FDIC's September 23, 2010 motion to intervene, and accompanying motion to remove the case to federal court upon grant of the intervention, can be found here. Georgian Bancorp was the corporate parent of Georgian Bank, of which the FDIC took control on September 25, 2010. My prior post about the Georgian Bancorp case can be found here.
Both of these lawsuits are direct, not derivative, actions. In each case the plaintiffs seek to recover damages in the form of their own lost investment interests. In asserting that it nevertheless has the right to intervene, the FDIC raises a number of interesting arguments.
First, in both cases, the FDIC asserts that both cases are basically just derivative lawsuits in disguise. Thus, for example, in the Haven Trust case, the FDIC asserts that "although Plaintiffs have attempted to frame their allegations of wrongdoing and damages in terms of securities fraud and misrepresentations ...Plaintiffs' alleged losses clearly emanate from the fact that the Bank, as sole asset of the Holding Company, became worthless upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for the Bank." In the Georgian case, the FDIC asserts that the plaintiffs' claim is "in substance a derivative claim." The FDIC asserts, the shareholders' claims are, in effect, "double derivative" claims.
Second, the FDIC asserts that as receiver of the respective banks, under 12 U.S.C. Section 1821 it has succeeded to "all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of the insured depository institution, and of any stockholder ... of such institution with respect to the institution and the assets of the institution." In reliance on this provision, the FDIC asserts as an initial matter that it has priority rights to assert the claims presented in the respective plaintiffs' complaints, because they are essentially derivative complaints.
The FDIC's further argument in reliance on this statutory provision is with reference to the respective institutions' D&O insurance policies. Thus, for example, the FDIC asserts in the Georgian case that among the assets with respect to which it assumed priority upon being appointed receiver was Georgian's D&O insurance policy, which "provides limited and finite monies for claims covered by the Policy and may be the only source of recovery against the Defendants in this or any subsequent lawsuit."
The FDIC points out further that the D&O policy is a "wasting asset" that would be reduced by defending the plaintiffs' claims. The FDIC has the right to intervene, it therefore asserts, because "its ability to recover in a subsequent lawsuit will be affected by any judgment in this action or protracted litigation."
The FDIC is even more explicit about the possibility of its pursuing claims in its intervention motion in the Haven Trust case. There the FDIC explicitly stated that its investigation includes examination of the "acts and/or omissions of the Bank's former officers and directors in connection with their management of the Bank's affairs." The FDIC states that after completing its investigation it will determine "whether claims should be brought against any individual or entity," noting that "several of the defendants in this case, as former officers and/or directors of the Bank, are potential targets."
There are a number of concerns with the grounds on which the FDIC is moving to intervene. First, the FDIC completely disregards the investors' own legal right to assert their own claims for their own alleged financial injuries. Second, and perhaps more to the point, the investors are asserting their claims as shareholders of the parent holding companies of the failed banks, not of the failed banks themselves. The FDIC's priority rights extend to its rights as receiver of the failed bank. Whether the FDIC can assert rights on behalf of the parent holding company of the failed bank is a potentially contentious proposition.
Section 1821 (d)(2)(A)(i), on which the FDIC relies to assert its priority rights, refers to the rights, titles, etc., of the "insured depositary institution, and of any shareholder ...of such institution." However, the plaintiffs' in this shareholder suits are not asserting rights as shareholders of the institution, but of the parent holding company. The FDIC may or may not be able to persuade a court to make the leap from its rights as receiver of the failed bank to the rights of the shareholders of the bank's parent company, but the argument seems to strain the language of the provision.
Finally, the FDIC may indeed be interested in preserving the D&O policies, but there is nothing about Section 1821 that gives the FDIC priority to the proceeds of the policy, in preference to other prospective claimants. The insurance proceeds are not a cash fund like an investment account: rather, the proceeds are available only for payment of certain kinds of loss arising from claims. The policy itself may be an asset of the estate, but the proceeds are available only pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy, only for payment of claims, and the rights of the insureds and the claimants to the proceeds of the policy are determined by the policy's own terms.
Whatever else may be said about the FDIC's actions in moving to intervene in these case, they do show both that the FDIC is actively considering pursuing its own lawsuits, and that it is will to move aggressively to preserve its own recovery prospects in the event it subsequently decides to pursue lawsuits. The pretty clear message is that the FDIC does intend to pursue lawsuits, too.
As if the prospect of competing lawsuits from both investors and regulators were not daunting enough for directors and officers of failed institutions (and their insurers), a lawsuit recently filed in South Carolina suggests yet another type of prospective claimant that may be asserting claims against failed banks' directors and officers.
On September 29, 2010, the trustee for the estate of Beach First National Bankshares filed a lawsuit in the Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Carolina against certain directors and officers of the bankrupt company. A copy of the complaint can be found here. The company's wholly owned subsidiary, First National Bank of Myrtle Beach, was closed on April 9, 2010 The Trustee's complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
While the Trustee may have seized the initiative in this case, there would seem to be the possibility that the FDIC might yet seek to intervene in the Trustee's case just as it did in the cases described above. Disappointed shareholders might also seek to assert their own claims for harm to their own investment interests, particularly since the First National holding company is a publicly traded company.
The possibility of claims asserted by these various prospective and active claimants underscores how one of the consequences of a bank failure may be a scramble for the proceeds of the insurance policy. The FDIC may well contend that under FIRREA it has certain priorities but other claimants are also highly motivated to circumvent the FDIC's asserted rights.
Of course in the end the FDIC may establish its priority. But in the meantime, the scramble for the D&O insurance could become quite a circus. And in the center ring could be the directors and officers of the failed institutions - and their insurers - against whom the competing claimants will assert their claims. The likelihood for further D&O litigation involving failed banks' directors and officers seems high.
One final thought about the FDIC's interventions in the two case discussed above -- there have been a fair number of shareholder class actions brought by investors in failed financial institutions. It will be interesting to see how far the FDIC goes with thie intervention tactic and whether it will seek to intervene in other cases involving larger financial institutions. Perhaps its initiatives in the two Georgia lawsuits are test cases that will determine whether it will seek to intervene elsewhere.
Many thanks to a loyal reader for providing copies of the various pleadings to which I linked above.
A copy of an October 3, 2010 Myrtle Beach Sun News article about the Beach First Trustee's lawsuit can be found here. (Full disclosure, I was interviewed in connection with the article.)
Read other items of interest from the world of directors & officers liability, with occasional commentary, at the D&O Diary, a blog by Kevin LaCroix.
FIRREA | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4423 | What is the New York State Nurse Practice Act?
The New York State Nurse Practice Act is a set of laws enacted by the state of New York regulating safe and appropriate nursing practice. Nursing care can pose risks to the public if practitioners are not competent, so the state sets standards of competence through the Nurse Practice Act.
What are some of the important points of New York State divorce laws?
What are the requirements for becoming a pediatric nurse?
What are the laws around unclaimed funds in New York?
According to the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, all states have a nurse practice act, which establishes basic standards, such as education program requirements, nursing practice specifications, licensure requirements and possible violations. Each state's nurse practice act also establishes a board of nursing, which sets rules and regulations that clarify and interpret the basic standards laid forth in the act.
ncsbn.org
What are some New York state labor laws?
There are many labor laws in the state of New York. The New York State Department of Labor governs minimum wage, work hours, child labor, wage payments and...
What are some laws regarding squatter's rights in New York?
As of 2016, New York's laws concerning squatters' rights include that claimants cannot share the possessed land and must occupy it continuously for at leas...
What are the laws regarding adoption in the state of New York?
New York state laws do not place limitations on who is eligible for adoption. Adults are permitted to adopt other adults. Anyone over the age of 14 must co...
What are some of the New York State criminal laws?
Some of New York State’s criminal laws include Article 140, dealing with burglary and related offenses, and Article 155, dealing with larceny. New York is ...
Where could you find a list of your local candidates for judge?
How often are most people asked to report to jury duty?
How can you find out if a lawyer has been disbarred in the United States?
What is a contract line item number?
What is the Davis-Bacon Act?
How do I remove a name from a deed to a house?
New York State Board of Nursing
New York State Estate Tax
New York State Inheritance Tax
New York State Gem
New York State Laws
New York State Symbols
New York State Nickname
New York State Regions
Can an employer require a doctor's note?
How long can a U.S. citizen stay in the Philippines?
When did legalism begin? | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4621 | Proposed legislation could aid drainage work
Proposed legislation could make issuing payment warrants for drainage work easier in the future.
John Torbert, executive director of the Iowa Drainage District Association, presented an update to the Webster County Board of Supervisors before its regular meeting Tuesday.
“We had a request come forward that talks about raising the maximum warrant amount that can be issued from $1,000 to $5,000,” Torbert said. “We’re getting that bill out and drafted as we speak.”
Warrants are issued to a company for the total amount of work to be done at the start of a project, and paid off at a later date. The low limit means a high number of warrants must be issued for a single project, adding to the paperwork.
The rule originally made it easier to pay off warrants, said Webster County Drainage Clerk Doreen Pliner, but the low limit is now outdated.
“Originally the districts were probably – a big one was $50,000, a regular one was $20,000 or $30,000,” she said.
A recently completed project cost $750,000, she said, “so we had to issue 750 warrants, and then you have to figure interest on each individual warrant.”
Torbert briefed the board on possible changes in EPA regulations, and on a recent court decision affecting the relationship between railroads and drainage districts.
The IDDA also has new books on drainage regulations available, as the previous book had not been updated for years.
The dues for the association will increase on July 1, from 2 cents per acre to 2.5 cents per acre, or $8,000 per year for Webster County, Torbert said.
In other business, Supervisor Bob Singer reported that he and five individuals from Webster County, including Webster County Engineer Randy Will and Fort Dodge City Councilman Kim Alstott, will attend Transportation Day today in Des Moines.
“We continue to encourage the state to address the problems we have in terms of roads, and funding roads,” said Singer, who serves on the U.S. 20 Corridor Association board.
The gas tax in Iowa has not gone up since 1988, he said. The Iowa Association of Counties will ask the legislature for an increase of 10 cents per gallon, over a period of time, to pay for roads.
Singer said he will bring a similar resolution for the Board of Supervisors to vote on at next week’s meeting. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4764 | | Gray v. Industrial Commission
Gray v. Industrial Commission
THEODORE A. GRAY, APPELLANT,v.THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL. (ELECTROCAST STEEL FOUNDRY CO., INC., APPELLEE).
MR. JUSTICE UNDERWOOD DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:
Claimant, Theodore A. Gray, filed a claim with the Industrial Commission under the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 48, par. 172.36 et seq.), on November 10, 1971, alleging disablement resulting from an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of his employment by respondent, Electrocast Steel Foundry Co., Inc. An arbitrator for the Commission denied compensation. The Commission, after hearing additional evidence, affirmed and the circuit court confirmed this decision. Claimant appeals.
At the hearing before the arbitrator, claimant testified on direct examination as follows. On April 16, 1971, while working in respondent's foundry, he noticed that the dust and smoke were bothering him. Several days later he was coughing hard and had blood in his sputum. He told this to the foreman, who convinced him to work until the end of his shift. He then went to the Billings Hospital emergency room, where he got some shots and fluid. After leaving, he felt worse and was admitted to Louise Burg Hospital, where he spent 18 days in the intensive-care unit under the care of Dr. Chong Paik. He has not returned to work since. He asked the plant superintendent for part-time work in a cleaner environment, but was told he could not work there any more.
Claimant testified further that prior to April 1971 he had worked at the foundry for 17 years as a floor molder, with occasional assignments in the core room. As a molder, his duties were to mix various ingredients into a sand used to line molds for molten steel, then shovel the mixture into a pattern and ram it into place with an air hammer. The mixture he made consisted of silica sand, wood, flour, comflour, binder, silica, molasses and water. His work area was always smoky and dusty. There were open coke fires, and when molten steel was poured into the molds, sometimes only six feet away from claimant, smoke and steam would rise from the molds.
Claimant also testified that in 1962 or 1963 he experienced pains in his chest and dizziness and spit up blood. He was admitted to Louise Burg Hospital and was absent from work for 47 weeks. In January 1971 he went to Billings Hospital, after which he missed three or four months of work, and he was hospitalized in November 1971, January 1972, and November 1972. He now weighs 105 pounds; when he was hired at the foundry he weighed 145 pounds. He had no breathing problems when hired; he now has chest pains, cough, dizziness and weakness. He has difficulty climbing stairs, carrying anything or breathing in a supine position.
On cross-examination, claimant testified that at Louise Burg Hospital in 1962 or 1963 his condition was diagnosed as bronchiectasis. Later the company doctor also diagnosed bronchiectasis, and the doctors at Billings Hospital made the same diagnosis. The doctors also told him several times over these years that he had pneumonia. He testified that he was smoking when he was hired and that he smoked one pack and two packs a day at different periods up to 1971.
Claimant introduced voluminous medical records from Louise Burg Hospital going back to 1963 and from Billings Hospital from 1971. The records establish that claimant was repeatedly hospitalized, tested and treated for lung complaints, and that over the years his condition was repeatedly diagnosed as bronchiectasis and that it was more than once diagnosed as pneumonia. The records contain numerous personal histories given by claimant, indicating, among other things, that he had pneumonia in 1953, 1964 and 1965, and that he smoked two packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years.
Dr. Abel Froman testified on claimant's behalf at the hearing before the arbitrator. He examined claimant in June 1972. His clinical examination revealed coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath which he felt were chronic. He took chest X rays that showed infiltration, fibrosis and scarring of the lungs. He noted that such infiltration and fibrosis can be produced by the inhalation of silica, but that an occupational history is necessary for such a diagnosis. On the basis of a hypothetical question incorporating claimant's testimony, Dr. Froman gave the opinion that claimant was suffering from silicosis induced by his working conditions.
Respondent introduced the report of Dr. Harold Steinberg dated March 16, 1972. Dr. Steinberg noted claimant's occupational history, his medical history of bronchiectasis and pneumonia and his smoking. The clinical examination revealed shortness of breath and crackling rales. Dr. Steinberg took X rays that showed changes in the lungs indicative of emphysema, but no discrete nodulation or increased linear fibrosis, such as one would see with silicosis. Based on the clinical history of repeated bronchial and pulmonary infections and the long period of heavy smoking, Dr. Steinberg concluded that claimant had bronchiectasis and emphysema; he found the X rays consistent with this diagnosis, and concluded that there was no causal connection between the disease and claimant's occupation.
The arbitrator denied compensation, finding that "Petitioner failed to prove that he was exposed to the hazards of an Occupational Disease as defined in the [Workmen's Occupational Diseases] Act." Claimant appealed to the Commission, contending that "the Arbitrator erred in denying compensation."
At the hearing on review, claimant offered additional hospital records, dating from 1974 and 1975, and called an additional witness, Dr. George W. Holmes. Dr. Holmes examined claimant in May and June of 1975. Clinical examination revealed pulmonary fibrosis and pulmonary emphysema and an electrocardiogram revealed P waves suggestive of pulmonary disease. Dr. Holmes stated that the etiology of the disease would depend on claimant's history. When given a hypothetical question incorporating claimant's occupational history, Dr. Holmes gave his opinion that the disease was secondary to claimant's exposure to silica, gases, dust and smoke at his job. On cross-examination, Dr. Holmes agreed that smoking, pneumonia and bronchiectasis, as well as occupational conditions, caused the pulmonary fibrosis.
As earlier indicated, the Commission affirmed the decision of the arbitrator denying compensation. In the circuit court, counsel for claimant argued the issue was not the correctness of the Commission's action denying compensation, but whether the finding of the arbitrator that claimant had not proved exposure to the hazards of an occupational disease was error. Counsel urged that if this finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the court must reverse the Commission's decision. The court clearly agreed that the finding of no exposure was incorrect but noted that aggravation of an ordinary disease of life by occupational conditions was not compensable under the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act until its amendment effective in 1975. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 48, par. 172.36(2)(d).) The court found that claimant's condition was traceable to pneumonia and bronchiectasis aggravated by exposure to industrial hazards, and concluded that, under the statute in effect in 1971, the Commission's decision was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
Claimant argues here, also, that the sole issue is the correctness of the arbitrator's finding of no exposure, urging that, if that finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence, the Commission's decision denying compensation must be reversed. We do not agree.
The jurisdiction of the Commission to review the evidence taken before the arbitrator and to consider any further evidence properly presented to it is original as opposed to appellate jurisdiction. Such a review is neither a trial de novo nor simply a review of the record, but is sui generis. (Meade v. Industrial Com. (1971), 48 Ill.2d 215, 220-21.) The Commission is not bound by the arbitrator's findings; it must consider all evidence presented to it and to the arbitrator in reaching a decision. (Leason v. Industrial Com. (1973), 55 Ill.2d 486, 493-94. See also Master Leakfinding Co. v. Industrial Com. (1977), 67 Ill.2d 517.) Assuming that the arbitrator's finding of no exposure was error, therefore, we cannot assume that the Commission's affirmance of his decision was bottomed on this erroneous finding. The issue before the Commission was, in claimant's own words, whether "[t]he Arbitrator erred in denying compensation." The Commission considered the record, heard additional testimony, and concluded that the arbitrator had not erred in denying compensation. If claimant wished the Commission to make a special finding on the correctness of the arbitrator's finding of no exposure, he could have submitted such a request in writing. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 48, par. 172.54(e).) The Commission was not required to make such a special finding, however (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 48, par. 172.54(e)), and having failed to request one, claimant cannot now complain of its absence.
Furthermore, under section 19(f)(1) of the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 48, par. 172.54(f)(1)), the circuit court reviews all questions of law and fact presented by the record. (Interlake Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 60 Ill.2d 255, 261-62.) The trial judge here considered the entire record and heard the arguments of counsel. The judge indicated that he disagreed with the arbitrator's finding of no exposure but that on his view of the record claimant suffered from a non-compensable ordinary disease of life aggravated by occupational conditions. Our review of the record indicates ample support for this conclusion in the conflicting medical testimony. The medical records introduced by claimant, the report of Dr. Steinberg introduced into evidence, and the testimony of Dr. Holmes on cross-examination all support the view that claimant's long history of pneumonia and bronchiectasis caused, at least in part, the pulmonary fibrosis that all the experts diagnosed. We cannot say, therefore, that the trial court erred or that the decision of the Commission was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Claimant argues that the diagnoses and personal histories contained in the medical records admitted into evidence may not be considered by the Commission or a reviewing court. He urges that such matters are hearsay not covered by the statutory hearsay exception in section 16 of the Workmen's Occupational Diseases Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 48, par. 172.51), under which the records were admitted. The statute provides:
"The records kept by a hospital, certified to as true and correct by the superintendent or other officer in charge, showing the medical and surgical treatment given an injured employee in such hospital, shall be admissible without any further proof as evidence of the medical and surgical matters stated therein, but shall not be conclusive proof of such matters."
Claimant contends that only the "nature, scope and degree of medical treatment" come within this provision, but cites no authority for this proposition.
We note first that damaging statements in the records made by claimant in giving personal histories, such as those regarding his smoking habits, are hearsay exceptions as admissions against interest. (Cuneo Press Co. v. Industrial Com. (1930), 341 Ill. 569, 572.) We note further that, when the records were introduced at the hearing, counsel for claimant expressly withdrew any section 16 restrictions on their contents and offered them in toto. While the statute contains no indication that diagnoses in hospital records, which would appear to be an integral part of treatment, do not constitute "medical and surgical matters stated therein," we need not decide that question. We hold only that where claimant has not objected at the hearing and indeed has expressly withdrawn any restrictions on the admissibility of the records, he cannot first raise a hearsay objection to their contents in this court.
Accordingly, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4780 | New York - Sunday, 11 December 2016 You are here: Home / Statements / General Assembly Statements / Sixth Committee Statements / 9 October 2013
Statement by H.E. Mr. Gholamhossein Dehghani Ambassador and Deputy Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement
on Agenda Item 85: “The rule of law at the national and international levels”
New York, 9 October 2013
In the Name of God The Compassionate, The Merciful
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
The Non-Aligned Movement has been following this item with high interest and believes that respect for the rule of law at the national and international levels is essential to maintaining international peace and security and achieving socioeconomic development. In this regard the Movement held its annual Ministerial Meeting on 27 September 2013 under the theme “the rule of law at the international level” in which high-level dignitaries and representatives of the Member States expressed their unwavering support for the theme and elaborated their views on its various aspects.
I would also like to recall the General Assembly High-Level Meeting on “the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels” held on 24 September 2012, and the Declaration adopted therein. Apart from the contents of the document and how balanced it is, convening that meeting was in itself a milestone and an important step in the General Assembly’s discussions of the rule of law aiming to develop a common understanding among Member States. We will spare no efforts to continue the course of discussions in the Sixth Committee, as part of the General Assembly and in cooperation with other partners, to achieve to the elaboration of a commonly shared clear vision and understanding on all components of the rule of law at the national and international levels.
The Non-Aligned Movement reiterates its position that it is indispensable to maintain the balance in developing the national and international dimensions of the rule of law. We continue to believe that the rule of law from the international dimension needs greater attention by the Organization. The Charter of the United Nations and the principles enshrined therein provide normative guidance as to the basis of the rule of law at the international levels. In this context the Non-Aligned Movement believes that the following elements are essential in fostering international relations based on the rule of law:– The principle of sovereign equality of States inter alia entails that all States have equal opportunity to participate in law making processes at the international levels;
– All States should equally respect and comply with their obligations under treaty as well as customary international law. Also, selective application of international law must be avoided;
– The legitimate and legal rights of States under international law must be respected by all;
– The principle of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations of States and peaceful settlement of disputes should constitute the cornerstone of the rule of law at the international level. In this regard, it is essential that Member States remain committed to a rule-based regime in the conduct of their respective relations with other Member States.
The Non-Aligned Movement fully supports the theme of this year’s debate in the Six Committee as “The rule of law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes” and encourages States to resort to pacific settlement of disputes mechanisms and tools established under international law, including the International Court of Justice and treaty based courts such as International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, as well as arbitration. We also call upon the General Assembly and the Security Council to utilise the right conferred to them under article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations to request for advisory opinions on any legal question from the International Court of Justice, whenever appropriate.
The Non-Aligned Movement reiterates that human rights, the rule of law and democracy are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. All States should fulfil their obligations to promote universal respect for and observance and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to human rights, and international law.
The Non-Aligned Movement stresses that the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the principles of international law are paramount to peace and security, rule of law, economic development and social progress and human rights for all. In this context, the Member States of the United Nations should renew their pledge to uphold, preserve and promote the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and international law, with the purpose of further advancing towards the achievement of full respect of international law.The NAM Members remain concerned on the application of unilateral measures, and stress upon their negative impact on the rule of international law as well as on international relations. No State or group of States has the authority to deprive other States of their legal rights for political considerations.
At the same time, the Non-Aligned Movement underscores the need for the United Nations Member States to fully respect the functions and powers of each principal organ of the UN, in particular the General Assembly, and to maintain the balance among these organs within their respective Charter-based functions and powers.
The Non-Aligned Movement underlines that close cooperation and coordination among all principal organs of the United Nations is highly indispensable in order to enable the Organization to remain relevant and capable of meeting existing, new and emerging threats and challenges. Nonetheless, the Movement reiterates its concern over the continuing encroachment by the Security Council on the functions and powers of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council by taking up issues which fall within the competence of the latter organs. The Security Council should fully comply with the international law and the United Nations Charter.
The General Assembly must play a leading role in promoting and coordinating the efforts towards strengthening the rule of law. However, the international community must not replace the national authorities in the task of establishing or strengthening the rule of law at the national level, but only to provide them with the necessary support at their request.
The Movement recognizes the importance of national ownership in rule of law activities and underlines the importance of strengthening national capacities of Member States in the domestic implementation of their respective international obligations, including through enhanced technical assistance and capacity-building. The Movement reiterates the need for those activities to be undertaken at the request of interested recipient Governments, strictly within the respective mandates of the United Nations funds and programmes. It is also necessary to take into account the customs and the national political and socioeconomic realities to prevent imposition of pre-established models upon Member States that would hinder the resolution of existing problems in each country.
Regarding the Rule of Law Unit, the Movement reiterates that appropriate mechanisms should be established for Member States to stay abreast of the Unit’s work as well as to ensure regular interaction between the latter and the General Assembly. There is no agreed definition of rule of law. This fact should be taken into account in preparing reports, and at the time of collecting, classifying, and evaluating the quality of data on issues which are directly or indirectly related to rule of law. The data gathering activities of UN bodies must not lead to a unilateral formulation of rule of law indicators and ranking of countries in any manner. Those indicators of rule of law are not acceptable which have not been agreed upon by Member States in an open and transparent discussion and consultation on this issue.
The Non-Aligned Movement is cognizant of the importance of rule of law and accountability at the United Nations. The Movement considers the system of administration of justice in the United Nations as an important mechanism. The Movement also supports initiatives aimed at holding the UN personnel accountable for any misconduct they might commit while serving as the UN official or expert on missions.
The Non-Aligned Movement condemns any attempt to destabilize the democratic and constitutional order in any NAM Member State.
The Non-Aligned Movement reiterates its position welcoming the General Assembly’s adoption of resolution 67/19 on 29 November 2012, which, inter alia, accorded to Palestine the status of non-member observer State in the United Nations, reflecting the international community’s longstanding, principled support for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including to self-determination, independence, and for the two-State solution, based on the pre-1967 borders in accordance with international law, including relevant United Nations resolutions. The Movement reaffirms the significance of this political and legal achievement for the Palestinian people and the Government of the State of Palestine, and also reaffirms support for the State of Palestine and to ensure its rightful place in the community of nations including by the achievement of admission to membership in the United Nations, in fullfilment of the application for full membership submitted by President Mahmoud Abbas on 23 September 2011, which remains pending before the Security Council.
The movement while underlining the importance of freedom of opinion and expression under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emphasizes that in exercising such freedom, morality, public order and the rights and freedoms of others must be recognized and respected, as apparent under article 29 of the Declaration. As freedom of expression is not absolute, its exercise should be carried with responsibilities in accordance with the relevant international human rights law and instruments.
I thank you. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4831 | Quality Control at the Second Circuit: 38 Years of Willfulness Jurisprudence Thrown Out in Kaiser?
GUEST BLOGGER-SOLOMON L. WISENBERG
Former U.S. FoodService ("USF") purchasing and marketing chief Mark Kaiser's convictions on charges of conspiracy and securities fraud were reversed on Thursday, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The Second Circuit's opinion is here. The reversal was based on Judge Griesa's faulty charge on conscious avoidance which was held to constitute plain error. Judge Griesa's conscious avoidance jury instruction did not contain two elements that the Second Circuit has repeatedly stated are necessary: "that knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is established (1) if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, (2) unless he actually believes that it does not exist." When Judge Griesa suggested sua sponte that a conscious avoidance charge was appropriate, the government reminded him that the two elements must be included, but they did not make their way into the final instruction. Although the defense did not object to the conscious avoidance charge in its final form, the law is so settled on this point that the Second Circuit had little difficulty finding plain error. Failure to include these two limiting elements in a conscious avoidance charge is a longstanding pet peeve of the Second Circuit.
Kaiser also complained that Judge Griesa's instruction on willfulness did not inform the jury that willfulness required knowledge of illegality. Under 15 U.S.C. Section 78ff(a), a/k/a Section 32(a) of the Exchange Act, "[a]ny person who willfully violates any provision of this chapter...or any rule or regulation thereunder the violation of which is made unlawful or the observance of which is required under the terms of this chapter, or any person who willfully and knowingly makes, or causes to be made, any statement in any application, report, or document required to be filed under this chapter or any rule or regulation thereunder...which statement was false or misleading with respect to any material fact, shall upon conviction be fined not more than $5,000,000, or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." A long line of Second Circuit precedent, going back at least to United States v. Dixon and reconfirmed in United States v. Cassese, has established that willfulness in the context of criminal Exchange Act prosecutions requires the government to prove a defendant's awareness of the general unlawfulness of his conduct under the securities laws. To paraphrase Senator McCarthy, virtually every schoolboy knows this, and the standard jury instruction to this effect is included in Judge Sand's widely used treatise, Modern Federal Jury Instructions-Criminal. The government does not have to prove the defendant's knowledge of the particular Exchange Act provision or SEC regulation or rule that he is charged with violating. (This would be inconsistent with Section 32(a)'s language that "no person shall be subject to imprisonment under this section for the violation of any rule or regulation if he proves that he had no knowledge of such rule or regulation." If a defendant can be convicted, although not imprisoned, under Section 32(a), even if he had no knowledge of the specific SEC rule he was violating, it stands to reason that the willfulness required to convict under the statute does not encompass knowledge of these same specific rules and regulations.) The standard Second Circuit Exchange Act criminal willfulness instruction sets a high scienter requirement for the government and can literally make the difference between a verdict of guilty or not guilty. The Kaiser Court examined Judge Griesa's willfulness instruction under plain error analysis. Although both the government and the defense submitted the standard Second Circuit charge requiring the government to prove Kaiser's knowledge that his conduct was illegal, Judge Griesa "did not give the proposed instructions, and did not rule on the proposed instructions before giving the charge, calling the practice 'a waste of time.'" In other words, Judge Griesa appeared to disregard the clear mandate of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(b). But neither party objected to the final charge, thereby bringing plain error review into play. It is hard to read the Court's opinion on the willfulness issue as anything other than a fundamental misinterpretation of Second Circuit precedent in this area, complete with importation of contrary precedent from other circuits. (I will have more to say on the specifics of the opinion in a future post.) The really unfortunate thing about this decision is that it is unlikely to be taken up and reconsidered en banc. Why? The defendant already has his new trial. The government now has a ruling that significantly lessens its burden of proof in future criminal Exchange Act prosecutions. (slw)
P.S. - This case, reversing the conviction, was handled by Dan Brown of the law firm of Murphy & McGonigle. See also here. As noted by a comment to the blog - the case was argued, on behalf of Mr. Kaiser, by Alexandra A.E. Shapiro of Macht, Shapiro, Arato & Isserles LLP.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2010/07/quality-control-at-the-second-circuit-38-years-of-willfulness-jurisprudence-thrown-out-in-kaiser.html
Current Affairs, Fraud, Judicial Opinions, News, Prosecutions, SEC, Securities | Permalink
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0133f2091497970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quality Control at the Second Circuit: 38 Years of Willfulness Jurisprudence Thrown Out in Kaiser?:
FYI, Alexandra A.E. Shapiro of Macht, Shapiro, Arato & Isserles LLP argued the appeal on behalf of Mr. Kaiser. Ms. Shapiro also argued the Cassese appeal.
Posted by: Jonathan Bach | Jul 4, 2010 1:01:45 PM | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/4930 | | COMMONWEALTH v. FLOWERS (10/28/75)
COMMONWEALTH v. FLOWERS (10/28/75)
COMMONWEALTHv.FLOWERS, APPELLANT
Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, No. 374 of 1973, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Donald Flowers.
James F. Geddes, Jr., for appellant.
John J. Gill, with him Jerome L. Cohen, First Assistant District Attorney, and Patrick J. Toole, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, P. J. Dissenting Opinion by Spaeth, J. Cercone, J., joins in this opinion.
Author: Watkins
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 591]This is an appeal by the defendant-appellant, Donald Flowers, from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Criminal Division, after conviction of being an accessory before the fact concerning the sale of marijuana to a narcotics undercover agent after trial by a Judge sitting without a jury. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 to 24 months.
On October 6, 1972 two agents of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Drug Control, were conducting undercover narcotics operations in the City of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. One of the agents, Norman Lepere, approached the defendant and asked if the defendant was "holding anything" which in drug parlance means whether he had any drugs in his possession. The defendant responded negatively. A few minutes after the agent's initial solicitation, a third party, George Shiner, approached the defendant and a female acquaintance of his and asked whether either of them wished to purchase drugs. The agents were standing a short distance from the defendant at this time on a busy street in the center of the city and did not overhear any part of the conversation. After the conversation with Shiner, the appellant approached the agent and indicated
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 592] to him that Shiner had some "grass". The entire group including the defendant, his female friend, her child, Shiner, and the two agents then proceeded to Shiner's residence, a mobile home in a trailer park. At Shiner's home another person, John Dustin, appeared on the scene bringing the narcotics with him. The marijuana was passed from Dustin, to Shiner, to the agent and $200.00 was passed from the agent, to Shiner, then to Dustin, whereupon Dustin left the premises. The appellant was present throughout this transaction but did not handle the marijuana nor the money. The agents could not remember any further conversation with appellant about drugs other than his initial introduction of them to Shiner. The court then found the defendant guilty of being an accessory before the fact to the sale of marijuana.
Under the old Crimes Code of Pennsylvania in effect at the time of this incident of which defendant was convicted, every accessory before the fact to any felony could be punished as if he was the principal. 1939, June 24, P.L. 872, § 1105, 1943, May 21, P.L. 306, § 1, 18 P.S. § 5105. The defendant was charged, tried and convicted of being an accessory before the fact.
Defendant cites the case of Commonwealth v. Simione, 447 Pa. 473, 291 A.2d 764 (1972) for the proposition that the facts adduced at trial by the Commonwealth were insufficient to sustain his conviction. In Simione, supra, the Supreme Court held that a defendant who was persuaded by the buyer of a prohibited substance, who was an undercover agent, to arrange the deal through a third party, and who acted as an intermediary in the deal, but who did not receive any proceeds of the sale and was not an agent of the seller could not be convicted of "selling" the proscribed substance. Unlike the situation in Simione the defendant in this case was not charged with selling the proscribed substance but was charged with being an accessory before the fact who
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 593] aided and abetted the sale. (Emphasis added). In Simione the court specifically directed itself to the charge of selling since a bill of particulars provided to the defendant by the district attorney specified that as the charge and since the lower court's charge to the jury unmistakably set forth the question of whether the defendant sold the drug as the sole issue for the jury's consideration. (Emphasis added). These factors played an important part in the Supreme Court's opinion in that case. This is also true of United States v. Moses, 220 F. 2d 166 (3d Cir. 1955). However, in the instant case the defendant was not charged with selling but with being an accessory to the sale. Therefore we do not feel that the ruling in Simione is determinative of the issue before us in this case. Our sole issue is whether the defendant "aided, abetted or counseled" the sale of the prohibited substance. In such case, the test is not the intention or willingness of the parties actually engaged in the commission of the offense, but rather what the one who is charged with being an accessory before the fact did in relation to the commission of the offense. Commonwealth v. Mourar, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 276, 74 A.2d 732 (1950). We find that the defendant did "aid, abet and counsel" the commission of the crime, i.e., the sale of the marijuana. It was the officer's testimony that it was the appellant who set up the sale of the marijuana, between Shiner and the officer. Without appellant's actions the sale of the drug would not have been accomplished since it was he who knew that the officer desired to purchase the drugs and it was he who knew that Shiner had such a product for sale. It is not appellant's mere presence at the scene which constitutes his culpability but his active participation in setting up the sale and helping it proceed to fruition which constitutes his guilt. We reaffirm the principle that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not constitute guilt of the crime. A passive bystander who happens to come on an illegal
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 594] activity but does not participate in it commits no crime. Commonwealth v. Jones, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 504, 247 A.2d 624 (1968). However, it is clear from the testimony that the defendant in our case was no mere bystander but that he actively participated in setting up the illegal sale and as such was an accessory before the fact.
We also find that the appellant was not entrapped into committing the crime. The officer merely asked defendant if he "was holding" and when the defendant responded negatively the officer walked away from him. He did not badger nor harass the defendant but merely let it be known that he was interested in purchasing drugs. The defendant did the rest. Under these circumstances we can find no improper police conduct amounting to entrapment. See, Commonwealth v. Conway, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 97, 173 A.2d 776 (1961), where at page 100 this Court cited Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435, 441, 53 S. Ct. 210, 212 (1953) as follows: "It is well settled that the fact that officers or employees of the Government merely afford opportunities or facilities for the commission of the offense does not defeat the prosecution. Artifice and stratagem may be employed to catch those engaged in criminal enterprises . . . A different question is presented when the criminal design originates with the officials of the Government, and they implant in the mind of an innocent person the disposition to commit the alleged offense and induce its commission in order that they may prosecute."
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion by Spaeth, J.:
In deciding whether appellant was guilty as an accessory before the fact, both the lower court and the majority of this court have applied a "but -- for" test. Thus the lower court said: "We ask whether without [appellant's] introduction of Shiner to the undercover
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 595]
agents a crime would have been committed. The obvious answer to this is in the negative." And this court says: "Without appellant's actions the sale of the drug would not have been accomplished since it was he who knew that the officer desired to purchase the drugs and it was he who knew that Shiner had such a product for sale." It is respectfully submitted that this is not the way to decide the case. The test to be applied is not one of causation but of agency, or partnership. An accessory before the fact is one who aids or abets in the perpetration of a felony. Commonwealth v. Leach, 455 Pa. 448, 317 A.2d 293 (1974); Commonwealth v. Finkelstein, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 328, 156 A.2d 888 (1959). To aid or abet in the commission of a crime, one must be an "active partner in the intent to commit it." Commonwealth v. Leach, supra at 451, 317 A.2d at 295. Commonwealth v. Strantz, 328 Pa. 33, 40, 195 A. 75 (1937). A "very slight and tenuous connection with the crime" is insufficient. Commonwealth v. Darnell, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 461, 463, 116 A.2d 310, 311 (1955).
In considering whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that appellant was "an active partner" of Shiner's, the most helpful case that I have found is United States v. Moses, 220 F. 2d 166 (3d Cir. 1955). There the defendant was convicted as a seller of narcotics under a federal statute providing that one who "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures" the commission of an offense against the United States is guilty as a principal. The facts were virtually identical to the facts here, as appears from Judge Hastie's statement of the case:
"Appellant, a single woman 26 years of age, is a drug addict. Two undercover federal narcotic agents had become unsuspected members of the wretched circle of addicts and their familiars in which appellant moved. On the afternoon in question these agents came uninvited to the apartment where appellant
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 596] lived with her parents. They told her they wished to purchase some drugs and inquired whether she knew where such could be obtained. She replied that she did not have any, that one Cooper who was her supplier would be over in about a half hour and that she would be able to arrange for the agents to get some drugs from him, but that they might also be able to obtain drugs from another supplier named Mack. After waiting a while the agents asked her to call Mack because they were not sure whether Cooper would come or not. Appellant called Mack's home but was not able to reach him. As the agents were about to leave Cooper arrived. Appellant introduced the agents to Cooper and told him that they wished to purchase drugs. Cooper inquired of her whether they were all right and, when she replied in the affirmative, asked how she knew. Her answer was that she had seen them 'over on the avenue' on other occasions. The agents then told Cooper the amount and type of drugs they desired and discussed the price with him. Appellant heard the conversation but took no part in it. The agents and Cooper left the house and separated. Some hours later that evening they reassembled at three different times and places. The money was paid at the second meeting and the drugs were delivered at the third meeting. Appellant was not present at any of these meetings which occurred at places other than her home.
"There is no evidence that appellant's relationship to Cooper's illicit business was other than that of a customer. On the day in question she merely introduced the prospective buyers to Cooper and vouched for them, all at the buyers' request, with the result that the principals accomplished a sale some hours later. On these facts the district court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty as charged." Id. at 167-68.
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 597]In analyzing the legal significance of these facts, the court collected various authorities to the effect that accessories before the fact must be "'confederates' or 'intentional participants in a common design with a principal actor.'" Id. at 169. ". . . [E]mphasis on those facts which show collaboration and association is characteristic of judicial analysis in those cases where convictions of aiding and abetting have been sustained." Id. (collecting cases). (This statement of the law, it will be observed, is in accord with the decisions of our Supreme Court and of this court, cited above.) The court then held that there was an "absence of any showing of collaboration or association," and therefore reversed the conviction. The court explained this holding as follows:
"The government has chosen to indict Marie Moses for her connection with the crime of selling rather than for any connection with buying. The conviction must stand, if at all, on her relation to the seller and his illicit enterprise. Any relation to the buyer actually militates against conviction of the charged offense of criminal complicity in selling.
"The undisputed facts show the appellant acting solely at the behest of the prospective buyers and in their interest. At the buyers' request she did two things to facilitate their purchase. She introduced them to the seller and she vouched for their bona fides, if purchasers of contraband drugs can be so characterized. That is all that was proved. There was nothing to show that she was associated in any way with the enterprise of the seller or that she had any personal or financial interest in bringing trade to him. Although appellant's conduct was prefatory to the sale, it was not collaborative with the seller. For this reason the conviction cannot be sustained." Id. at 168.
I find no distinction between Moses and this case. There, as here, "[t]he government has chosen to indict
[ 236 Pa. Super. Page 598]. . . for [the defendant's] connection with the crime of selling rather than for any connection with buying." However, there, as here, "[t]here was nothing to show that [the defendant] was associated in any way with the enterprise of the seller . . . ." The majority states that "[t]he entire group including the defendant, his female friend, her child, Shiner, and the two agents then proceeded to Shiner's residence . . . ." They proceeded, however, in the agents' car; and since Shiner was along, presumably he led the way to his residence; there is nothing to suggest that appellant did more than go along, as did his female friend and her child. In my judgment, this is not the "partnership," or "collaboration," or "association," that must be shown to sustain a charge that the defendant acted as an accessory before the fact. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/5030 | Toobin: 'This Law Looks Like It's Going To Be Struck Down'
ByIgor BobicPublishedMarch 27, 2012, 12:17 PM EDT
CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, following Supreme Court arguments on President Obama's health care law, said on CNN that based on what he heard inside the Court, things didn't look good for proponents of the law.
"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration," he said. "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong... if I had to bet today I would bet that this court is going to strike down the individual mandate."
Toobin added that he felt that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli simply wasn't prepared for the conservative justices.
"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."
Toobin also said he thought Justice Kennedy, the perennial swing vote, was a "lost cause" for supporters of the health care reform law. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/5124 | Federal Circuit Oral Arguments Now Available on iTunes
One can easily access the audio recordings of oral arguments from the Federal Circuit website. However, for those who prefer to use iTunes, I noticed that recent recordings are available from iTunes at this link for free.
“adapted, in its operative position, to _____”
In reading Judge Moore’s dissent in Norgren v. ITC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2012) that issued the other day, her comment about the functional language in the claim at issue caught my eye. The claim at issue read:
1. Connecting structure for contiguously connecting
together a pair of fluid-flow elements, each
fluid flow element including a generally rectangular
ported flange so as to define a pair of ported
flanges associated with the fluid-flow elements,
said connecting structure comprising:
a four-sided, generally rectangular clamp adapted,
in its operative clamping position, to engage, in
parallel relationship with one another, the pair of
ported flanges, one of said sides of the clamp being
pivotally mounted so that said one side can be
pivoted out of said operative clamping position in
order to permit reception of said flanges into the
clamp and then pivoted back into said operative
clamping position,
sealing means for establishing fluid-tight communication
between the respective ports formed in
said flanges, and
locking means for releasably locking said one side
in said operative clamping position, in which position
the clamp urges the flanges towards one another
thereby establishing together with said
sealing means, said fluid-tight communication between
said ports.
In discussing the functional language, Judge Moore comments that the functional language is a requirement of the claim that must be treated as a claim limitation:
We must look to the precise claim language and be
ever vigilant not to strip away patent rights by eliminating
claim limitations. This claim requires the clamp to be
both “generally rectangular” and “four-sided” in structure.
Hence, while something with six sides (like the SMC
ported flange pictured above) might be generally rectangular,
that does not mean it is “four-sided.” The claim
does not require that the flange be four-sided, but it does
require that the clamp be “four-sided.” The claim also
recites the functional limitation that the clamp must be
“adapted, in its operative clamping position, to engage
. . . the pair of ported flanges.”
Hence the claims require that the clamp is: (1) foursided;
(2) generally rectangular; and (3) adapted in its
operative position to engage the flanges. These are three
distinct requirements, three distinct claim limitations.
The ALJ clearly understood this. The majority, however,
improperly combines the structural and functional claim
limitations to conclude that only the operative portion of
the clamp must be four-sided and generally rectangular.
(Emphasis added).
In view of Judge Moore’s remarks, look for more uniform examination within the PTO of claims that include “adapted to” and other functional language — or not.
The Giles S. Rich Papers
This might be of interest to those of you with easy access to the Library of Congress. I wonder if Box 599 holds anything of interest for the briefing of CLS v. Alice: [Link].
Richard Taranto Nomination Turns One Year Old
Saturday, November 10th, 2012
Richard Taranto was nominated a year ago today for a seat on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Taranto’s nomination followed the failed nomination of Edward DuMont, who was a nominee between April of 2010 and November 2011. The open seat on the bench for which Mr. Taranto is a nominee has been vacant since Chief Judge Paul Michel’s retirement from the Federal Circuit on May 31, 2010. The nomination of Mr. Taranto fell victim to the Leahy-Thurmond rule earlier this year. With the election now concluded, Mr. Taranto’s nomination should advance to a vote by the full Senate.
You can watch the nomination hearing for Mr. Taranto here.
Oral Argument of Already v. Nike
Wednesday, November 7th, 2012
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument today in the case of Already v. Nike. The question presented is:
Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party’s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party’s then-existing commercial activities.
The transcript of the oral argument is available here: link.
The audio of the oral argument is available [here.].
Justice Breyer’s famous comment is available [here].
The briefs are available here:
Brief for Petitioner Already, LLC
Brief for Respondent Nike, Inc.
Reply Brief For Petitioner
Brief for Intellectual Property Professors in Support of Petitioners
Brief for Public Patent Foundation in Support of Petitioner
Brief for the International Trademark Association in Support of Respondent
Brief for Levi Strauss & Co. and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. in Support of Respondent
Brief for the United States in Support of Vacatur and Remand
Audio of Supreme Court Oral Argument in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons
Sunday, November 4th, 2012
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons the other day.
You can listen to the oral argument here.
You can read the transcript of the oral argument here.
Posted in Supreme Court Oral Arguments, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Three Federal Circuit Vacancies
Friday, November 2nd, 2012
If I am interpreting the US Courts’ website correctly, Judge William C. Bryson is scheduled to take senior status on January 7th. That means that it is likely that at least three new Federal Circuit judges will be sworn in within the next year.
WILLIAM C. BRYSON was appointed by President William J. Clinton in 1994. Prior to his appointment, Judge Bryson was with the United States Department of Justice from 1978 to 1994. During that period, he served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General [1978-79], Chief of the Appellate Section of the Criminal Division [1979-83], Counsel to the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section [1983-86], Deputy Solicitor General [1986-94], Acting Solicitor General [1989 and 1993], and Acting Associate Attorney General [1994]. He was an Associate at the Washington, DC law firm of Miller, Cassidy, Larroca and Lewin from 1975 to 1978. Judge Bryson served as Law Clerk to the Honorable Henry J. Friendly, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1973 to 1974, and as Law Clerk to the Honorable Thurgood Marshall, Supreme Court of the United States, from 1974 to 1975. Judge Bryson received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1969 and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1973. | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/5143 | DONATE Federal Refusal to Enforce Law Allows Foreign Fishing Companies to Use Harmful Methods
Bycaught loggerhead turtle, 1969 (photo: Bob Williams-NOAA)
Despite a 40-year-old federal law meant to protect them, every year more than 650,000 marine mammals, including dolphins, whales and sea lions, are killed in foreign fisheries after being hooked, entangled or trapped in commercial fishing nets and other gear, according to a new report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). When marine mammals are caught in fishing gear, it is called “bycatch,” i.e., they are caught as bystanders to the tuna or other fish that are the fishers’ real goal.
Passed by Congress in 1972, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) requires that all imported fish be accompanied by proof that the technology used to catch them does not kill or seriously injure marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards. Congress intended to protect dolphins and whales, American consumers concerned about them, and U.S. fishers’ whose costs are higher because they have to use mammal-safe technology.
But according to the NRDC, that mandate has been “collecting dust for more than 40 years,” because it “has never been enforced by the federal government.” The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is supposed to enforce the MMPA, admitted as much in its October 2012 Five-Year Plan, which said that as “an initial step” to protect marine mammals, “NMFS will identify the nations that export fish and fish products to the United States from fisheries that have bycatch of marine mammals.”
Warning that “bycatch is pushing many populations to the brink of extinction,” including “the New Zealand sea lion, Mediterranean sperm whale, vaquita, and J-stock minke whale,” the report urges the federal government to take specific steps to protect marine mammals in foreign fisheries, especially by enforcing the MMPA.
First, NRDC recognizes that regulators must promulgate a definition of “U.S. standards” for mammal protection that is specific enough to hold foreign exporters accountable for their bycatch. Until such a standard exists, there is literally nothing for the NMFS to enforce.
Second, NRDC recommends that NMFS enforce the law while keeping in mind international trade obligations, mainly by “treat[ing] all exporters equally and…allow[ing] for flexibility in the means by which exporters meet U.S. bycatch standards.” -Matt Bewig
Net Loss: The Killing of Marine Mammals in Foreign Fisheries (by Zak Smith, Margaretmary Gilroy et al., Natural Resources Defense Council)
Did you Know Buying American Seafood Could Save a Whale? (Natural Resources Defense Council)
Shutdown Ends Food Inspections in U.S., Leaving 90% of U.S. Seafood Imports Unchecked (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)
One-Third of Fish Sold as Food are Mislabeled…and Watch out for Sushi Bars (by David Wallechinsky and Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov) | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/5346 | Why YouTube is offering legal support for users threatened with takedowns Latest News
Trump team’s 'intrusive' memo alarms DOE climate scientists In a bid to raise awareness about issues of 'fair use,' the site will provide legal aid to four users threatened with takedown notices. By
Max Lewontin, Staff writer
A picture illustration shows a YouTube logo reflected in a person's eye, in the central Bosnian town of Zenica in June 2014. YouTube said on Thursday that it will begin providing legal support for a handful of videomakers threatened with takedown notices for using copyrighted material, in a bid to raise awareness about fair use issues.
Dado Ruvic/Reuters View Caption About video ads
of When an online video creator receives a notice instructing them to take down a video because it contains copyrighted material — such as a snippet of a TV show or, until recently, even the song “Happy Birthday” — they often have few options but to comply.Copyright battles can often prove expensive and drag on for years, presenting a challenge for video creators and for video sharing sites, which have often cracked down harshly in a bid to stop the spread of pirated material.Now, YouTube is offering an alternative, announcing on Thursday that it will begin providing “legal support” to a handful of users so they can fight claims from copyright holders. If the copyright-holder sues, the tech giant will assist users by paying up to $1 million in legal fees.
Foreign companies that beat Silicon Valley at its own game
The site, which is owned by Google, is offering aid to the creators of four videos that it says meet the standard of fair use, an exemption to US copyright law that allows new projects that make use of copyrighted material in a way that goes beyond the copyright holder’s original intent, for example by commenting, parodying, or satirizing it.
The company says the move is intended to correct some of the power balance that can be directed against content creators in the wake of the controversial 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which implemented digital rights management software often used to protect music or downloadable movies from online piracy.“We’re doing this because we recognize that creators can be intimidated by the DMCA’s counter notification process, and the potential for litigation that comes with it,” wrote Fred von Lohmann, Google’s copyright legal director, in a blog post announcing the move.The videos YouTube has selected so far are wide-ranging, including a video game review, a UFO-debunking, a critique of state lawmakers in Ohio by a local pro-choice group, and a comedic commentary on the controversy surrounding former NAACP chapter president Rachel Dolezal.The move is particularly significant as a symbolic "brushback pitch" against copyright holders, says James Grimmelmann, a law professor at the University of Maryland. "It’s a very strong warning that copyright holders should rethink their positions because a major company has said, 'We think this is fair use,' " says Professor Grimmelmann, who focuses on Internet law and intellectual property issues.Providing a legal defense on fair use grounds may also assuage long-running criticism that YouTube's automatic system for responding to takedown notices does not always allow users to contest the decision to remove a video, he adds."Google hasn’t announced any changes to its larger practices, but they’re clearly trying to position themselves as more user friendly," Grimmelmann says. "You could almost read this as an offering, to a group that has had reasons to feel slighted."Constantine Guiliotis – whose YouTube channel “U.F.O Theater,” focuses on debunking U.F.O. sightings by combining clips found online with his own commentary – was one of the users selected for the effort. His videos have been subject to three takedown notices, but after YouTube reviewed them and determined they would meet the definition of fair use, they were reposted, the New York Times reports.“It was very gratifying to know a company cares about fair use and to single out someone like me,” Mr. Guiliotis told the Times.The program is also intended as an educational effort for the site’s users about fair use, including creating a library showing successful examples of using copyrighted material lawfully, Google says.So far, the site is taking a carefully targeted approach to what videos it chooses to defend, noting that the program will support only very small portion of videos that are threatened with takedown notices, and may not extend to some videos that would likely be considered fair use.But Grimmelmann says the site could do more to educate users by closely tailoring its guidelines on appealing a DMCA violation to more closely follow the law. While there has been more awareness about fair use over the past few years, there are some misconceptions among users, such as a belief that posting a disclaimer noting that a video contains copyrighted material makes their own upload fair use."They’re pointing to features that don’t always make a lot of difference, but ignoring that one that does, which is transformativeness," he says.The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also supported the effort, although the group notes that an additional step would be to allow any user to enroll in the program, rather than hand-selecting examples that Google says are fair use."We think this is a solid and unprecedented step forward in protecting fair use on the site," wrote Amul Kalia, EFF's Intake Coordinator, in a blog post. "We commend YouTube for standing up for its users, and we hope the program will inspire other service providers on the web to follow its lead."Despite its initially limited roll-out, the YouTube effort may be most valuable in its ability to appeal to a broad swath of users."There’s a very classic conception of fair use, which is people who need to work with raw materials, such as a book critic," Grimmelmann says. "This is the other extreme. This is about people who are making videos often using their home computers – people who are fans, people who are remixers, people who are making video that is personally important to them, that will never be part of the marketplace."
How Google's neural network will improve YouTube
With YouTube Red, Google pivots from ads to paid subscriptions (+video)
Why Silicon Valley cares so much about who will lead the Library of Congress
40 iPhone tips and tricks everyone should know | 法律 |
2016-50/4330/en_head.json.gz/5556 | "The team has so many contacts with foreign insurers and so many people with foreign languages that it is miles ahead of others."
Chambers and Partners (2014)
Gardinia Plaza, Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt 2010
Irwin Mitchell has been approached to act for holidaymakers who travelled to the Gardinia Plaza, Sharm el Sheikh in Egypt in August 2010, some of whom fell ill with unpleasant gastric illness.
The holidaymakers have told us that they fell ill with gastric symptoms including vomiting, diarrhoea and stomach cramps. They were aware of other guests who were staying at the hotel at the same time who suffered from similar symptoms. The holidaymakers have described worrying examples of very poor food hygiene standards in the hotel. Food was often cold, and raw meat was served to guests, including chicken and beef. The hotel was dirty and staff were rude and unhelpful. There were insects on the food and cockroaches throughout the hotel.
The holidaymakers also describe problems with other aspects of the hotel, including not being supplied with a cot for three days and flea infested rooms. Upon the arrival for breakfast on the second day of some of the holidaymakers’ holidays, they were shocked to find that the dining room had been closed, only to be replaced by a filthy marquee tent in the car park.
If you have been affected by gastric illness following a stay at this hotel, you may be able to claim compensation for your ruined holiday and also the pain and suffering caused by the illness.
For more advice on making a holiday illness claim, contact us on 0800 056 0066 or complete our enquiry form and we will call you back. « Back
"We were very happy with the outcome of our case, especially as we were initially offered nothing from the Tour Operator. Irwin Mitchell were very professional throughout and we are very happy with the outcome."
Chris and Michael, Worksop Call us on | 法律 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
Industry models play a crucial role in driving enterprise intelligence transformation and innovative development. High-quality industry data is key to improving the performance of large models and realizing industry applications. However, datasets currently used for industry model training generally suffer from issues such as insufficient data volume, low quality, and lack of domain expertise.
To address these problems, we constructed and applied 22 industry data processing operators to clean and filter 3.4TB of high-quality multi-industry classified Chinese and English language pre-training datasets from over 100TB of open-source datasets including WuDaoCorpora, BAAI-CCI, redpajama, and SkyPile-150B. The filtered data consists of 1TB of Chinese data and 2.4TB of English data. To facilitate user utilization, we annotated the Chinese data with 12 types of labels including alphanumeric ratio, average line length, language confidence score, maximum line length, and perplexity.
Furthermore, to validate the dataset's performance, we conducted continued pre-training, SFT, and DPO training on a medical industry demonstration model. The results showed a 20% improvement in objective performance and a subjective win rate of 82%.
Industry categories: 18 categories including medical, education, literature, finance, travel, law, sports, automotive, news, etc. Rule-based filtering: Traditional Chinese conversion, email removal, IP address removal, link removal, Unicode repair, etc. Chinese data labels: Alphanumeric ratio, average line length, language confidence score, maximum line length, perplexity, toxicity character ratio, etc. Model-based filtering: Industry classification language model with 80% accuracy Data deduplication: MinHash document-level deduplication Data size: 1TB Chinese, 2.4TB English
Industry classification data size:
| Industry Category | Data Size (GB) | Industry Category | Data Size (GB) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Programming | 4.1 | Politics | 326.4 |
| Law | 274.6 | Mathematics | 5.9 |
| Education | 458.1 | Sports | 442 |
| Finance | 197.8 | Literature | 179.3 |
| Computer Science | 46.9 | News | 564.1 |
| Technology | 333.6 | Film & TV | 162.1 |
| Travel | 82.5 | Medicine | 189.4 |
| Agriculture | 41.6 | Automotive | 40.8 |
| Emotion | 31.7 | Artificial Intelligence | 5.6 |
| Total (GB) | 3386.5 |
For the convenience of users to download and use, we have split the large dataset into sub-datasets for 18 industries. The current one is the sub-dataset for the law industry.
Data processing workflow:
- Downloads last month
- 3,339
Size of the auto-converted Parquet files (First 5GB):
2.88 GB
Number of rows (First 5GB):
821,908
Estimated number of rows:
43,550,615