Ronson lent his producing talents to tracks 'New' and 'Alligator' off of McCartney's upcoming record.
By Brenna Ehrlich
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713402/mark-ronson-paul-mccartney-new.jhtml
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Mark Ronson Almost Missed A Career-Changing Phone Call From Paul McCartney
Jack, My Narcoleptic Nephew Update
Remember when I wrote this post about how my nephew Jack can sleep anywhere?
Well, here's the latest:
Source: http://www.prettyinthecity.com/blog/2011/6/17/jack-my-narcoleptic-nephew-update.html
Claudette Ortiz Coco Lee Connie Nielsen Cristina Dumitru Daisy Fuentes
The DRI - ‘The Voice of the Defense Bar'
DRI is considered a ‘think tank’ for defense attorneys and in-house counsel. On Ringler Radio, host Larry Cohen and Ringler colleague, Jim Early, join Attorney Matthew Cairns from the firm, Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell, to focus on the DRI - ‘The Voice of the Defense Bar’ and talk about what defense attorneys should know about the settlement process.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/10/the-dri-the-voice-of-the-defense-bar/
divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers
Naya Rivera & Demi Lovato Pucker Up on 'Glee' Set
The new co-stars take a selfie together! Check out other cute and candid moments from the celebs.
Amy Smart Ana Beatriz Barros Ana Hickmann Ana Ivanovi Ana Paula Lemes
'Saving Mr. Banks' Made B.J. Novak Break His No-Selfies Rule
For MTV News' Fall Movie Preview, Novak tells us what it was like filming with Tom Hanks, who plays Walt Disney.
By Brett White
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713345/bj-novak-saving-mr-banks.jhtml
Carol Grow Carrie Underwood Cat Power Catherine Bell Chandra West
Protip: Don't Screw With Old Folks
A squad of 18 deputies in Cook County were very aggressive in trying to collect money from deadbeat dads, using whatever methods they needed to bring these culprits to justice. When they put a gun to 77-year-old Merien Macon's head, however, they messed with the wrong person. From the Chicago Tribune:
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
When the unit arrived at the Macons' home, two weeks before Merien's arrest, officers had two outstanding warrants for couple's son, Derrick Macon, then 50, including one for child support. Officers insisted they be allowed into the home, William Macon said.
Because the officers did not have a search warrant, William Macon refused, he said.
William Macon, 83 years old, wasn't to be easily pushed. You gotta love tough old birds. And before anyone gets all bent out of shape about his "derelict" deadbeat son, it turns out that while the team knew all about the outstanding warrants for child support, they somehow missed the order holding that he wasn't the father of the child. But let's not have facts impair a good story.
When the deputies saw Merien drive up to the back of the home, they approached with guns drawn — one pointed at her head as she sat in the car — and pressed her about her son's whereabouts, according to the lawsuit.
"I was really surprised when they walked up with their guns," Merien Macon, a retired clerical worker, said last week. "I was scared. I was shocked. I was surprised."
Macon, who had dropped off her son earlier, told them she didn't know where he was and she did not want to answer questions, [Macon's lawyer, Elizabeth] Kaveny said.
And so the deputies, duly chastised by their overly violent conduct frightening a nice old woman, apologized profusely and left her in peace outraged by her refusal to do as they commanded, decided to teach an old woman a lesson.
At that point, Merien Macon became upset and told the officers she would not speak to them. The officers handcuffed, frisked and arrested Merien Macon on a charge of obstruction of justice.
The officers then took her to a nearby parking lot, where they gave her a phone and told her to call her son and find out where he was.
Merien's husband, William, a retired electrician, called that "a hostage situation," attempting to trade off his wife for his son. The sheriff's office claimed that was not at all the case, and they were just being thoughtful.
The sheriff's office denied attempting to pressure Macon to call her son and said she was moved to the parking lot because her husband had become upset and neighbors were starting to gather.
They didn't want to upset old William by forcing him to watch her cuffed, frisked and with guns pointed at his wife's head. A very sensitive gesture in law enforcement, likely to win a medal at some point.
The Macons sued for what was done to Merien.
Merien Macon was charged with felony obstruction of justice, leading her to file a lawsuit against Sheriff Tom Dart and the officers involved. A Cook County jury recently sided with her, awarding Macon $327,500 and agreeing with her husband that what happened that afternoon went too far.
Frankly, that's a very healthy award, give that most plaintiffs in her situation could hope for a fraction of that at best. But then, picture a jury hearing the testimony in this case, looking at the 77-year-old woman and her loving 83-year-old husband, and pondering the cuffs on her wrists, the hands on her body, the gun at her head, all over a mistaken child support warrant. It doesn't get more sympathetic than this.
"I've seen this type of thing over and over and over," William Macon said. "But when it happens to you it becomes more personal."
Truth. Unless you happen to be knowledgeable about your rights, have the guts to assert them with a gun pointed at your head and, purely by happenstance, a couple of cool codgers, chances aren't good you would end up with a verdict of this magnitude. This makes it an exceptionally good reason to both applaud the Macons, and to care a whole lot about when things like this happen "over and over and over." Because next time it could be you, and it will, without question, become "more personal."
H/T Spencer Neal
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/13/protip-dont-screw-with-old-folks.aspx?ref=rss
injury lawyers international law international law schools internet lawyer labor attorney
Workers’ Compensation for Harbor Workers and Longshoremen
Before The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, policy covered those working on land and those working within navigable waters, and neglected worker’s on the harbor. This left harbor workers with nowhere to turn but litigation when they were injured on the job. On this edition of Worker’s Comp Matters your host Attorney Alan Pierce has invited Steven M. Birnbaum to discuss The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, The Defense Base Act, and coverage for workers’ on the harbor.
Steven M. Birnbaum, Esq. started his private practice in 1983 specializing in workers’ compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act and the California Labor Code. He is a certified specialist in workers’ compensation by State Bar of California and a certified specialist in Admiralty and Maritime Law by State Bar of California. Birnbaum is a frequent lecturer on the topic of worker’s compensation and The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Listen to the interview as two worker’s compensation specialists discuss coverage for those working on and along the water.
Steven M. Birnbaum, Esq. started his private practice in 1983 specializing in workers’ compensation under The Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act and the California Labor Code. He is a certified specialist in workers’ compensation by State Bar of California and a certified specialist in Admiralty and Maritime Law by State Bar of California. Birnbaum is a frequent lecturer on the topic of worker’s compensation and The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.
Listen to the interview as two worker’s compensation specialists discuss coverage for those working on and along the water.
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
First Look: Matthew McConaughey Plays An HIV-Positive Texan In ‘Dallas Buyers Club’
It could be the hormones, but I just got hella teary-eyed watching this trailer for Dallas Buyers Club. Whoo! Get it together, Shannon… Okay. So we’ve all been witness to Matthew McConaughey‘s very dramatic weight-loss and we now have our first full look at the character he was attempting to embody. McConaughey seriously looks like [...]
Ninth Circuit Vacates Dismissal and Remands Shareholder Derivative "Say-on-Pay" Suits to California State Court
In Dennis v. Hart, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15648 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that plaintiffs’ “say-on-pay” shareholder derivative suits alleging breach of fiduciary duty were improperly removed to federal court, vacated the district court’s decisions and dismissed the parties’ cross-appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action because defendants had held an advisory vote in compliance with the federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78n-1, and plaintiffs had only alleged state law causes of action. This holding indicates that challenges to board actions in response to “say-on-pay” votes are not enough to confer federal jurisdiction without additional, specific violations of federal law.
Plaintiffs alleged that in 2010, despite reporting negative net income and free cash flow, the board of directors of PICO Holdings, Inc. (“PICO”) increased executive compensation. In a Dodd-Frank Act-mandated advisory vote held in May 2011, 61% of PICO’s shareholders voted against the proposed 2010 compensation package. The board, however, took no action in response to the vote. Shareholders later filed derivative actions in California state court against PICO and its board members. Plaintiff Ronald Dennis asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, contribution and indemnification, and unjust enrichment. He also requested a declaration “that the adverse May 13, 2011 shareholder vote on the PICO Board’s executive compensation rebutted the business judgment surrounding the PICO Board’s decisions to increase executive compensation.” Plaintiff George Assad asserted claims for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty relating to the Board’s issuance of false and misleading statements, compensation practices, and the Board’s lack of response to the say-on-pay vote.
Defendants removed the actions to federal court, and moved to dismiss. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the request for declaratory judgment in Dennis for failure to state a claim, and determined the remaining claims should be remanded to state court. In Assad, the district court dismissed the breach of fiduciary claim due to the failure to respond to the say-on-pay vote, and determined the remaining claims should be remanded to state court. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to do anything other than remand the cases to state court. The Ninth Circuit addressed and dismissed three potential avenues for defendants to assert federal jurisdiction: (1) Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“1934 Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78aa, (2) the “significant federal issue” rule and (3) the complete preemption doctrine.
Defendants first argued that Section 27 of the 1934 Act provided the federal court with jurisdiction because Section 27 “vests federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over actions ‘brought to enforce any liability or duty created by [the 1934 Act] or the rules and regulations thereunder.’” However, the Ninth Circuit held that “[n]othing in either complaint alleges any . . . violation of the say-on-pay provision or any other provision of the [1934] Act. On the contrary, the parties agree that PICO did what the Act requires: it held a vote.” The Court disagreed with defendants’ reliance on Sparta Surgical Corp. v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1998), holding that while “Sparta’s complaint sought relief based upon violation of exchange rules[,]” plaintiffs here acknowledge that PICO complied with the act and instead only allege state law violations.
Defendants next argued that because Congress went to great lengths to ensure that say-on-pay votes were considered only advisory and would not create any new causes of action, Congress’ “desire to preclude liability” is a significant federal issue that confers jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit again disagreed, holding that while defendants likely had a “very strong federal defense,” a federal defense does not confer federal jurisdiction.
Defendants finally argued that the doctrine of complete preemption conferred federal jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit disagreed once again, holding that “[c]omplete preemption is a limited doctrine that applies only where a federal statutory scheme is so comprehensive that it entirely supplants state law causes of action.” The Court held that “[n]othing in the [1934] Act . . . specifically suggests that Congress intended to totally displace state law. On the contrary, we have recognized that the [1934] Act does not so fully displace state law as to invoke complete preemption.” The Court also noted that complete preemption did not apply because (1) the parties agreed that plaintiffs had not alleged a federal cause of action and (2) the Dodd-Frank Act expressly “created no new fiduciary duties and explicitly preserved existing state laws.”
Although this decision appears to limit the ability of defendants to remove to federal court claims attacking board responses to Dodd-Frank Act “say-on-pay” votes, it does not address other bases for removal, such as the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(2). With the flood of “say-on-pay” cases receding over the past twelve months, the question of federal jurisdiction over “say-on-pay” cases may become less significant.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717 or Whitney Fair at (213) 617-5436.
Drake: Kendrick Lamar's 'Not Murdering Me'
'It just sounded like an ambitious thought to me,' Drake tells Billboard magazine.
By Rob Markman
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713405/drake-kendrick-lamar-control-verse-response.jhtml
Grace Park Gretha Cavazzoni Gwen Stefani Halle Berry Hayden Panettiere
Fergie Gives Birth
The Black Eyed Peas singer and Josh Duhamel welcomed their first child Thursday.
By Jocelyn Vena
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713326/fergie-birth-baby-boy.jhtml
Grace Park Gretha Cavazzoni Gwen Stefani Halle Berry Hayden Panettiere
NSSTA’s Take the Hill
This past April, members of National Structured Settlement Trade Association (NSSTA) decided to "Take the Hill". They headed to Capitol Hill for meetings with members of Congress and senior Congressional staff to discuss important public policy and the economic security benefits of structured settlements. Ringler Radio host, Larry Cohen talks to Ringler colleagues, Peter Early and Erin Muller about their experience at "Take the Hill" and their mission to educate our elected officials on the benefits of structured settlements.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/ringler-radio/2012/07/nsstas-take-the-hill/
immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney injury attorneys injury lawers
Jack, My Narcoleptic Nephew Update
Remember when I wrote this post about how my nephew Jack can sleep anywhere?
Well, here's the latest:
Source: http://www.prettyinthecity.com/blog/2011/6/17/jack-my-narcoleptic-nephew-update.html
Amanda Bynes Amanda Detmer Amanda Marcum Amanda Peet Amanda Righetti
LawBiz® Legal Pad On the Road: Incentive Based Compensation
Today Ed takes on your questions! Based on a comment from a Facebook fan, he explores whether incentive-based compensation exists for lawyers.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/q-23lAsXXxE/
government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer
Kim Kardashian Jabs At Katie Couric
Well, well, well. If it isn’t the old case of getting involved with a celebrity that the media already loathes. The same thing happens every time Kim, the media will turn against you, too. Messing with Kanye West could be the fatal career mistake that you won’t be able to recover from.
Just take the latest incident with Katie Couric, who is yet another media personality to slam Kim. Recently, the famous newsreader said something in InTouch magazine that didn’t sit well with Kim.
Couric said she didn’t understand why Kim was even famous, and added “I think it’s mostly teenage girls that are interested.”
That started some controversy all by itself. Complaining about how they are “famous for nothing” is such a tired and cliche point, but it seems to really push the Kardashian’s buttons.
So what was Kim’s brilliant response? Well, she somehow thought it would be a great idea to post a picture of a gift that Couric sent for her baby. It turns out that Katie sent some pajamas for baby North West, which I guess Kim found ironic.
She Tweeted about it, saying that it was “fake” for Couric to send a gift, then turn around and talk s***.
The best part was that the label on the gift was misprinted by the company who delivered it. The entire thing was pretty much cut off, but it said something to the effect that Katie suggested that Kanye and Kim give their daughter a name that starts with the letter “K.” Obviously that is a fitting comment for Katie as well.
Personally, the whole thing it ridiculous and petty. Let’s get over ourselves ladies and start propping each other up instead of tearing each other down.
..and the pajamas were ugly anyway. Sigh.
Your thoughts?
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/ZkRVWfS_VlE/
SEC Adopts Rules to Remove Ban on General Solicitation for Rule 506 Offerings
This morning the Securities and Exchange Commission, by a 4 to 1 vote of the Commissioners, approved implementing rules under Title II of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act to remove the ban on general solicitation for offerings to accredited investors under Regulation D, Rule 506. The SEC has not yet released the final rules as adopted, and we do not yet know what will be the effective date of the final rules. We do however know that the final rules, once effective, will require a Form D to be filed with the SEC at least 15 days in advance of the commencement of any general solicitation for a Rule 506 offering.
Issuers should hold off commencing general solicitation for offerings under Rule 506 of Regulation D until the final rules are publicly available, effective and all conditions to general solicitation are satisfied.
You can read our blog post about the SEC’s proposed rules for removing the ban on general solicitation here.
The SEC also adopted this morning rules required under the Dodd-Frank Act that will prevent “bad actors” from participating in Rule 506 offerings.
We will be blogging further on these new rules as more details become available.
Disclaimer
This update has been prepared by Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP for informational purposes only and does not constitute advertising, a solicitation, or legal advice, is not promised or guaranteed to be correct or complete and may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this update.
traffic attorney traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney attorney
Making Selling Easier for Lawyers
Why is selling so hard for lawyers and what can you do about it? On this September edition Jared Correia, the host of The Legal Toolkit and Senior Law Practice Advisor with Mass. LOMAP, joins Stephen Seckler, principal of Seckler Legal Consulting and Coaching, to talk about selling vs. marketing, how important referrals are for attorneys and some of the key things that get in the way of attorneys successfully generating work.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2012/09/making-selling-easier-for-lawyers/
financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney find lawyer
Friday, August 30, 2013
Miley Cyrus Releases ‘BANGERZ’ Promo Photos
A batch of promo photos have hit the Internets that are said to be featured in the album artwork for Miley Cyrus‘s new album BANGERZ. As you can see in the gallery presented here, Miley is wearing clothing AND she’s not twerking. Honestly, I like pretty much all of these photos BECAUSE of the non-twerking [...]
Source: http://www.pinkisthenewblog.com/2013-08-29/miley-cyrus-releases-bangerz-promo-photos
Avril Lavigne Bali Rodriguez Bar Refaeli Beyoncé Bianca Kajlich
Bradley Cooper Will Voice Rocket Raccoon In Marvel's Guardians Of The Galaxy! Hooray!
SWEEEEEET!!!!
We told you this might happen last week, but now it's official!
Our beloved Bradley Cooper will play Rocket Raccoon in Marvel's upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy!!!
Woo hoo!!! We cannot wait to see his marvel-ous man-muscles displayed on the big screen and... Wait, he's playing a raccoon?! An animated raccoon?!
Ugh!!! Nooo!! What about his biceps? What about his triceps? What about his pecs? HAS ANYONE EVEN CONSIDERED HIS SPARKLING BLUE EYES?!
Maybe director James Gunn would do us the world the great courtesy of nixing the CGI and throwing the Oscar-nominated actor into a raccoon-print speedo instead.
Sigh. Probz not.
Still, this comic book adaptation playbook has several silver linings!!
Two of them are the named Zoe Saldana and the super stud-ly Chris Pratt, and they also star in the flick!
Guardians of the Galaxy is all set to blow our minds and tickle our ballz on August 1, 2014.
[Image via Tumblr.]
Claudette Ortiz Coco Lee Connie Nielsen Cristina Dumitru Daisy Fuentes
State Bar: Friend or Foe?
Jim Heiting, former president of the State Bar of California, commented on my article in LawBiz® Tips last week. He said, "I fully agree with your article about bar associations ... and the new push to create more unemployment and less opportunity for the solo and small practitioner. Why not develop a [Bar] program that assists solos and small practitioners to represent people for reduced fees to get experience, make money, provide services otherwise unavailable at that rate, etc. We have many, many who would like to make a modest living but can't/don't seem to do it. This would assist the needy in both arenas: client and attorney."
For my money, Jim Heiting has been the only California Bar leader who truly had members' (lawyers) AND the public's interests in mind. Others before and since Jim have seen the Bar as a regulatory agency for the public with little or no concern for members. Unfortunately, this is likewise the case across the country.
There are way too few leaders in the legal community, whether in the Bar or the law school, who understand The Business of Law® and are willing to focus on members’ (lawyers) needs. Instead, they focus on creating new licensure opportunities that will not truly help the intended market and will both weaken the value of the law degree and the economic well-being of members.
Source: http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/LawBizBlog/~3/Z77WtaZXfkI/
Gone Clio with Attorney Joe Bahgat
Listen as Clio co-founder Jack Newton talks with special guest, Attorney Joe Bahgat of Bahgat Law LLC. Jack and Joe talk about cost savings through Clio, hiring a virtual assistant, tools to help you stay organized and the capabilities of Clio’s document management and Clio Connect features.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/gone-clio/2012/05/gone-clio-with-attorney-joe-bahgat/
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
Michael Jackson's 15 Most Memorable Moments
On what would have been the singer's 55th birthday, take a look back at the highs and lows of his life and career.
It's Not Easy Being Weev (Update)
Appellants and amici briefs are now in at the Third Circuit on the appeal of Andrew Auernheimer's conviction for somehow violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. I say "somehow" as the government was never pinned down on whether it was exceeding authorized access or unauthorized access. But they were clear that what he did was wrong, wrong enough to get him convicted and sentence to 41 months imprisonment.
Weev didn't help himself. Whether he wanted to be a martyr to the cause of geekdom or just unwilling to win except on his terms isn't clear. But his lawyer, Tor Eckland, couldn't control him, and had enough on his hands trying to defend Weev in what I believe to be his first trial*. While the prosecution was huge within the computer hacker community, it didn't garner the attention of Lori Drew's prosecution, lacking a dead child. But make no mistake, Weev's prosecution raises issues of monumental significance for all computer users.
Orin Kerr, who joined the defense team on appeal, gives a summary of the case.
Here are the basic facts. When iPads were first released, iPad owners could sign up for Internet access using AT&T. When they signed up, they gave AT&T their e-mail addresses. AT&T decided to configure their webservers to “pre load” those e-mail addresses when it recognized the registered iPads that visited its website. When an iPad owner would visit the AT&T website, the browser would automatically visit a specific URL associated with its own ID number; when that URL was visited, the webserver would open a pop-up window that was preloaded with the e-mail address associated with that iPad.
The basic idea was to make it easier for users to log in to AT&T’s website: The user’s e-mail address would automatically appear in the pop-up window, so users only needed to enter in their passwords to access their account. But this practice effectively published the e-mail addresses on the web. You just needed to visit the right publicly-available URL to see a particular user’s e-mail address. Spitler realized this, and he wrote a script to visit AT&T’s website with the different URLs and thereby collect lots of different e-mail addresses of iPad owners. And they ended up collecting a lot of e-mail addresses — around 114,000 different addresses — that they then disclosed to a reporter. Importantly, however, only e-mail addresses were obtained. No names or passwords were obtained, and no accounts were actually accessed.
Or to put it a bit more succinctly, Weev and Spitler stumbled on pages that were publicly accessible, but AT&T figured no one would find because there was no way to access them other than to have its iPad or, as stumble on them. They then did what geeks do, and exploited their discovery to see how far they could go. Rather than hand it over nicely to AT&T so it could cover its tracks and deny its screw-up, they gave it to a reporter to publish. AT&T was pissed, and the government was happy to prosecute as payback for quick and easy disclosure of your cellular communications the heinous crime of publicly embarrassing AT&T for being a computer idiot.
The appellant's brief, after a disturbing opening to the main argument that repeats the conventional wisdom from 1986 analogizing computers to physical trespass, takes the view that this just isn't a crime. As the pages were public, it cannot be unlawful access. The brief reads more academic than advocate, but does an admirable job of making its points.
There are two amici briefs, one arguing that this is how everybody uses the internet, and the other arguing that this is how sophisticated internet security experts use the internet, both reaching the same conclusion that affirmance of Weev's conviction would criminalize normal and lawful practices.
As everybody else involved relies on analogies, it seems appropriate despite my view that it's critical to stop using real world analogies to explain digital world conduct, to do the same. The prosecution's argument is that just because someone leaves their door unlocked doesn't mean a person can walk in and take what he wants. The defense argument is that when someone leaves their stuff in front of a picture window, passersby commit no crime by looking in and seeing what the person put on display. Neither analogy strikes me as fully satisfying.
The question for the rest of us is where the line is drawn between lawful and unlawful conduct based on a law crafted at the birth of public computer use and before there was any world wide web to consider. The language of the CFAA fails miserably to provide an answer, and there is certainly no "originalist" view since there was no internet in existence. What we are left with is empty, meaningless language being shoehorned into technology that didn't exist. It might have seemed like a good idea back in 1986, but we're paying for it now.
Nonetheless, Congress can't be bothered to do its job of crafting a law that might apply, and the court is left with trying to decipher criminality from inapt words and their limited grasp of how the tubes work (or that of their kids, their law clerks, or maybe the kid down the street).
The prosecution has a huge glaring hole that needs answering: Is there any middle ground for a URL that can be accessed without hacking a password but is otherwise not intended to be found, accessed or used except by a discrete, chosen group of users? The government wants the crime to depend on the subjective and transitory intent of the website owner, where "unauthorized" is defined as undesired. The defense wants a brightline test that says if it can be publicly accessed, then there can be no crime.
The government's position is not only untenable, but presents a threat to users that can't be tolerated. And indeed, it's so highly subjective, and selective, that it ignores that Google et al. violate it constantly with impunity. Do we want cookies and bots crawling all over us, capturing our personal info to feed back to people so they can sell us crap? I don't think so. But it prevailed below anyway.
The problem now is that the burdens shift on appeal, and it's the appellant's position that will be subject to scrutiny. Is there no limit to what we can access on the internet, as long as we don't hack the password? What if all the surrounding circumstances leave us with no doubt that the website owner doesn't want anybody coming in uninvited, so that no reasonable person can not be aware that he's entering a URL where he isn't welcome? Is that still okay?
Since the lines are drawn at polar extremes, and the arguments remain couched in poor analogies, and the judges will have a terrible time getting into the mindset of sophisticated computer users who think nothing of screwing around with user agents to see what they can find, and Weev felt compelled to handle himself in the typical, snarky, computer whizkid way that tends to just piss the crap out of everybody who isn't a snarky computer whizkid, this is going to be a tough fight.
But there remains one detail that I would have pounded hard, far harder than either the appellant or amici. Fair notice requires that the language of the CFAA, for smarter or stupider, state clearly what constitutes criminal conduct so that a person will know what not to do. By the Rule of Lenity, the failure of the law to adequately define a crime given the state of technology as it currently exists must resolve all ambiguities in favor of the defendant.
While no one knows what Congress might do if it is forced to recraft the CFAA, and they could make it even worse, what seems clear now is that it is far too unclear to imprison anyone whose conduct falls within that middle ground of not hacking a password and breaking through a brick wall. Maybe they would criminalize what happened here, but until the law makes clear where the line is drawn, the government can't just make it up at will. And the Third Circuit should not be so activist as to give a 2013 meaning to a 1986 law that the government pulls out of its butt to nail Weev.
Weev's conviction must be reversed, despite his attitude and mouth, because the rest of us used the internet too and if Weev is a criminal, so too are we all.
* I hasten to add, lest anyone think otherwise, that I think Tor did an exceptional job with this case, even the more remarkable given the circumstances.
Update: Via Volokh, the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has just become available. While I'm still going through it, my initial impression is that it's excellent, and fills in some of the gaps in the other briefs. Notably, putting them all together, the argument on behalf of Weev is overwhelming.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/09/its-not-easy-being-weev.aspx?ref=rss
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
Clint & Dina Eastwood Split!
Clint Eastwood and his wife of 17 years have called it quits! See more celeb pairs who are back to going solo
Amber Arbucci Amber Brkich Amber Heard Amber Valletta America Ferrera
Law Librarians at the Front Lines of Change
In the June edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, an attorney and Editor-in-Chief of ALM's Law Technology News invites her American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) co-presenters, Steven Lastres and D. Casey Flaherty to chat about the recent and upcoming changes in technology affecting law librarians and legal research. Bay, Lastres, and Flaherty will be presenting at AALL’s annual conference this month in Seattle. Learn how librarians are leading the charge for faster, better, and cheaper legal services!
• Lastres, an attorney, is director of library and knowledge management for Debevoise and Plimpton. He is responsible for the firm’s information and knowledge management initiatives. He is the co-founder of the OnFirmerGround blog — a collaborative effort of international law library associations seeking to promote the value that law firm librarians bring to the business and practice of law.
• Flaherty is corporate counsel of Kia Motors America. He manages all legal matters from transactional to litigation. Before moving in-house he worked at BigLaw where he focused his practice in commercial litigation and e-discovery. Flaherty is known for his meticulous auditing system made specifically for law firms, on which he regularly speaks and writes about.
Tune in for a sneak preview of their upcoming presentation and the future of legal research.
• Lastres, an attorney, is director of library and knowledge management for Debevoise and Plimpton. He is responsible for the firm’s information and knowledge management initiatives. He is the co-founder of the OnFirmerGround blog — a collaborative effort of international law library associations seeking to promote the value that law firm librarians bring to the business and practice of law.
• Flaherty is corporate counsel of Kia Motors America. He manages all legal matters from transactional to litigation. Before moving in-house he worked at BigLaw where he focused his practice in commercial litigation and e-discovery. Flaherty is known for his meticulous auditing system made specifically for law firms, on which he regularly speaks and writes about.
Tune in for a sneak preview of their upcoming presentation and the future of legal research.
criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases
Lady Gaga Gets A 'Manicure' In New Rehearsal Footage
Ahead of her iTunes Fest show, Gaga unveils another ARTPOP track ... and once again, it rocks.
By James Montgomery
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713354/lady-gaga-manicure-rehearsal-clip.jhtml
Jennifer Sky Jenny McCarthy Jessica Alba Jessica Biel Jessica Cauffiel
The LinkedIn Lawyer
Are you on LinkedIn? Un-Billable Hour host Attorney Rodney Dowell, Executive Director at Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers and Director of LCL’s Massachusetts Law Office Management Assistance Program chats with Dennis Kennedy, lawyer and co-host of The Kennedy-Mighell Report and Allison Shields, author of Legal Ease Blog, about their recently published book, LinkedIn in One Hour for Lawyers. Dennis and Allison talk about how attorneys are using LinkedIn, and the key features that make LinkedIn a valuable networking and client development tool without consuming all of an attorney’s time.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/un-billable-hour/2012/06/the-linkedin-lawyer/
legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society
Maneuvering Your Paralegal Career from Start to Finish
On the April edition of The Paralegal Voice Vicki Voisin hosts Charlsye Smith Diaz, a professor of technical writing at The University of Maine, who got her start as a paralegal.
Diaz and Voisin met through The National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and there they decided to co-author a book, The Professional Paralegal: A Guide to Finding a Job and Career Success. The book was written with both beginning and experienced paralegals in mind.
In this episode of The Paralegal Voice, Voisin and Diaz discuss the different phases of a paralegal career, including writing and interview tips, what to do when you get a job, how to organize your workspace and your time, as well as the steps to take to make your career both interesting and fulfilling.
Diaz and Voisin met through The National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA) and there they decided to co-author a book, The Professional Paralegal: A Guide to Finding a Job and Career Success. The book was written with both beginning and experienced paralegals in mind.
In this episode of The Paralegal Voice, Voisin and Diaz discuss the different phases of a paralegal career, including writing and interview tips, what to do when you get a job, how to organize your workspace and your time, as well as the steps to take to make your career both interesting and fulfilling.
absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law attorney definition attorney directory
Fergie Gives Birth
The Black Eyed Peas singer and Josh Duhamel welcomed their first child Thursday.
By Jocelyn Vena
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713326/fergie-birth-baby-boy.jhtml
UN rights office concerned over forced evictions in West Bank
[JURIST] The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on Tuesday expressed concern [press release] that the forced eviction of Palestinians in the West Bank [JURIST news archive] by Israeli authorities could amount to a violation of international law. Last week Israeli authorities began the demolition of structures lacking building permits in six locations. Inhabitants were ordered to evacuate immediately or risk high monetary fines. According to OHCHR spokesperson Cecile Pouilly, the permanent removal of families, without...
download power of attorney dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer
'Thor: The Dark World' Is An 'Avengers' Sequel, Tom Hiddleston Says
Hear about the MTV Movie Awards winner's hopes for a Hulk rematch, and watch an exclusive trailer cutdown for our Fall Movie Preview.
By Josh Wigler, with reporting by Brett White
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713239/thor-dark-world-loki-tom-hiddleston.jhtml
Jessica Cauffiel Jessica Paré Jessica Simpson Zooey Deschanel Aaliyah
Wisconsin public employee collective bargaining statute amendments declared unconstitutional
A teachers' union sought declarative and injunctive relief against the governor, claiming that statutory amendments dealing with municipal employees' collective bargaining rights and payroll deductions of dues and pension contributions were unconstitutional.
The trial court declared the statute unconstitutional. Madison Teachers v. Walker (Wisconsin Circuit Ct 09/14/2012)
(1) Certain portions of the statute violated the free speech clauses of the Wisconsin and US constitutions. Although there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining, the statute imposes burdens on the speech and associational rights of employees represented by unions which burdens are not imposed on other employees. They cannot negotiate wage increases greater than the cost of living, they cannot pay dues by payroll deductions solely because the dues go to labor organizations. A ban on fair share agreements means that union members bear the cost of bargaining for non-members who receive the befits of bargaining. Requiring unions to be recertified annually burdens members with the full costs of the election.
(2) The trial court applied strict scrutiny to the equal protection claims because of the infringement on speech rights. The statute creates two classes of employees (represented and non-represented), and the defendants "offer no defense of the statute that would survive strict scrutiny."
(3) Certain portions of the statute violated the Wisconsin constitution's home rule amendment, violated the constitutional bar on impairment of contracts, and deprived employees of property without due process.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/09/wisconsin_publi.html
federal attorney financial lawyer find a lawyer find an attorney find attorney
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Kim Kardashian Jabs At Katie Couric
Well, well, well. If it isn’t the old case of getting involved with a celebrity that the media already loathes. The same thing happens every time Kim, the media will turn against you, too. Messing with Kanye West could be the fatal career mistake that you won’t be able to recover from.
Just take the latest incident with Katie Couric, who is yet another media personality to slam Kim. Recently, the famous newsreader said something in InTouch magazine that didn’t sit well with Kim.
Couric said she didn’t understand why Kim was even famous, and added “I think it’s mostly teenage girls that are interested.”
That started some controversy all by itself. Complaining about how they are “famous for nothing” is such a tired and cliche point, but it seems to really push the Kardashian’s buttons.
So what was Kim’s brilliant response? Well, she somehow thought it would be a great idea to post a picture of a gift that Couric sent for her baby. It turns out that Katie sent some pajamas for baby North West, which I guess Kim found ironic.
She Tweeted about it, saying that it was “fake” for Couric to send a gift, then turn around and talk s***.
The best part was that the label on the gift was misprinted by the company who delivered it. The entire thing was pretty much cut off, but it said something to the effect that Katie suggested that Kanye and Kim give their daughter a name that starts with the letter “K.” Obviously that is a fitting comment for Katie as well.
Personally, the whole thing it ridiculous and petty. Let’s get over ourselves ladies and start propping each other up instead of tearing each other down.
..and the pajamas were ugly anyway. Sigh.
Your thoughts?
Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/RightCelebrity/~3/ZkRVWfS_VlE/
Transgender Family Law in the Courts
Advocates for the transgender community say this segment of the population faces an extremely difficult time in court because of bias and misunderstanding, especially in cases of parental rights and protection for transgender youth. Lawyer2Lawyer co-host and attorney, Bob Ambrogi breaks down the difficulties the transgender community faces every day with Attorney Jennifer L. Levi, the director of GLAD's Transgender Rights Project and Attorney Elizabeth E. Monnin-Browder from Ropes & Gray and a former GLAD attorney. Jennifer and Liz also discuss their new book, Transgender Family Law: A Guide to Effective Advocacy.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/05/transgender-family-law-in-the-courts/
criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law criminal law cases criminal laws
The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
There is a great debate before the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act minimum coverage provision is in fact constitutional. For insight into the case, host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, turns to Wendy Mariner, professor of law at BU School of Law and the lead author of an amicus brief submitted to the court by more than 100 health law professors. Together, they discuss Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida and the amicus brief, and examine some of the interesting points that arose during the court's oral arguments.
dui attorney dui lawyer dumb laws dwi lawyer electronic power of attorney
Advanced Searching and Technology Assisted Review
Identify the best practices for conducting smart searches by listening to The ESI Report. Host and Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack, Michele Lange, gets expert advice for conducting smart searches and exploring advanced search options to increase the effectiveness of your search protocol from Harris T. Berenson, E-discovery Counsel for Hughes Hubbard & Reed and Alex C. Gross, Legal Consultant at Kroll Ontrack. Then on the Bits & Bytes Legal Analysis segment, Kroll Ontrack Legal Consultant, Mark Thompson, analyzes recent court opinions discussing the hot topic of technology assisted review.
employment law courses employment lawyer employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney
Jay Z Premieres Moody, Massive 'Holy Grail' Video
Teaming with Justin Timberlake, Jay creates a clip that comes with a colossal, almost monolithic weight.
By James Montgomery
Source:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1713307/jay-z-holy-grail-video.jhtml
Claudette Ortiz Coco Lee Connie Nielsen Cristina Dumitru Daisy Fuentes
'Kelly and Michael' One Year Later: Bigger Than Regis?
Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan are approaching their first anniversary as co-hosts of Live with Kelly and Michael, and if anyone doubted ABC's out-of-the-box decision last year to replace the retiring Regis Philbin with a garrulous defensive end, they're not saying so now. Live with Kelly and Michael is rocking right along. And it's done so right from Strahan's start last Sept. 2.
The Internet of Things and Our Virtual Lives
The Internet of Things explains the virtual representation of objects on the web — like turning your car’s AC on from a smartphone app. Is it possible that soon the internet will be able to control our daily lives, down to resetting our alarm based on the train schedule we take to commute to work? Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell talk about the possibilities and implications of the internet of things in our daily lives and in the legal field. The second portion of the show explains The Human Genome Project, and what Kennedy learned after sending in his DNA.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2013/03/the-internet-of-things/
patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
What Really Went Down with Miley & 'N Sync at the VMAs
We really didn't think that Sunday's MTV Video Music Awards ranked with the all-time best -- but if people are still talking about it 48 hours later, they clearly did something right. At this point, most of the gossip is about that too-brief 'N Sync reunion or the fiasco that was Miley Cyrus. Let's take a moment to answer all your burning questions about the week's most buzz-worthy moments.
Alexis Bledel Ali Campoverdi Ali Larter Alice Dodd Alicia Keys
Stranger Danger
My sister recently had a talk with my four-year-old nephew Jack about strangers. Here's how it went:
SISTER: Now, Jack, if a stranger says, "Come here, I want to show you something," what do you do?
JACK: I turn around and run!
SISTER: If a stranger says, "Come here, I want to give you some candy," what do you do?
JACK: I turn around and run!
SISTER: If a stranger says, "Come here, I want to show you my puppy," what do you do?
JACK: Oh, I love puppies...
Source: http://www.prettyinthecity.com/blog/2011/7/26/stranger-danger.html
Amy Cobb Amy Smart Ana Beatriz Barros Ana Hickmann Ana Ivanovi
Michael Douglas & Catherine Zeta-Jones Split!
Copyright - Stupid Celebrities Gossip 2013. If you see this content on any other website, it has been stolen. Please report.
Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2013/08/michael-douglas-catherine-zeta-jones-split/
Giuliana DePandi Giulianna Ramirez Grace Park Gretha Cavazzoni Gwen Stefani
Living in a Public Beta
There’s been a lot of discussion lately about what many see as Apple’s stumble with its maps application in iOS 6. Bryan Wolfe on AppAdvice.com recently asked "Did I Miss The Memo From Apple Making Us All Beta Testers?" From operating systems to software to apps to web services, we often find that new products and services don’t’ quite feel finished. In this episode of The Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss changing expectations in a world of fast and frequent software releases and updates, the challenge for lawyers wanting stability with their technology, and ways to cope with what feels like living in a giant public beta test.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2012/10/living-in-a-public-beta/
conservator copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney
Magic Words, Magic Rights
Knowing my love of police "magic words," a reader pointed me to a thread on the subreddit Bad Cop No Donut on whether there is anything to be done when a police officer claims he "smells pot" in a car.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Or does the 4th Amendment REALLY vanish with those magic words?
I've been stopped and the cop claimed he smelled pot, when, at the time, I hadn't touched the stuff in years. I told him I'd consent to a search if he apologized for wasting both of our time when he didn't find anything. He searched, didn't find anything, and I was on my way without an apology and a "verbal warning" to fix my tail light
Do you ask for another officer's opinion?
Do you tell the officer "bullshit"?
I'm just trying to help some people know what to do in this situation.
Initially, it helps for have a basic understanding of the law as it currently exists. When a cop says he "smells pot," he is invoking the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, which is based on exigent circumstances. Since a person can drive away, and thereby evade arrest and seizure of evidence of a crime in a car, the Supreme Court crafted the exception fin Carroll v. United States, a 1925 opinion about bootleggers getting away from the revenuers, which has done more harm to the 4th Amendment than perhaps any other case.
Since smell can't be captured and bottled for later presentation to a judge, the only "proof" of what an officer smelled is the officer's testimony. If he says so, it becomes real, and that's why they are magic words. Other than proving impossibility or incredibility, there is essentially nothing that can be done to challenge what the cop says he smelled. More importantly, even if a subsequent search turns up no pot, that doesn't mean he didn't smell what he smelled. The officer will testify about his training and experience in smelling pot, and yet he can be mistaken. The law doesn't require the cop to be right.
But the discussion thread about the magic words is where a grave misunderstanding about the system becomes clear. The problem derives from the absence of any marijuana in the car. The cop says he smelled it. This gives rise to probable cause to search and the automobile exception allows the cop to do so without a warrant. A search follows, and it can be as intrusive as the cop chooses to make it. By intrusive, it can include dismantling your brand new Maserati into a million pieces on the side of the road and, when it's over, leaving it there.
So the cop smells pot, searches and comes up empty. No apology. No help putting your Maserati back together. He drives away without so much as a tip o' the hat. This is where people don't seem to understand how constitutional rights work.
There are no elves in the backroom enforcing your constitutional rights. Had the police officer found something in the car to justify an arrest, the question of the constitutionality of the search could be hashed out in court in a suppression motion and hearing. Bear in mind that the cop may have claimed to smell marijuana, but that doesn't mean pot is what was found. Maybe other drugs. Maybe an illegal gun. Maybe a dead body. The smell of pot claim serves to except the search from the warrant requirement, and whatever comes of the search is the basis for the subsequent arrest.
But the cop finds nothing. Nada. Zip. You are clean and, surrounded by the pieces of your brand new Maserati, free to go. What then?
This is where people get confused. That's it? Don't the cops have to, you know, do something?
No red light goes off in the backroom of the constitutional elves. Actually, there is no such backroom. There's nothing. As the cop drives away, that's the end of the encounter, unless the person chooses to take action to contest the violation of his constitutional rights, such as a §1983 claim.
The problem there, of course, is that the cop, invoking the magic words that he "smelled pot," will very likely prevail despite the fact that he found nothing. You won't make it past summary judgment. More significantly, no lawyer will take the case on contingency, meaning that you will have to pay to play, and it will prove to be an expensive longshot to even make the effort to enforce your constitutional rights.
Consider the plight of people stopped in the street in New York City under the stop & frisk program, where the most generous view is that the police take action against 12% of the people stopped. They've performed millions of stops, and a tiny fraction have resulted in people going before a judge, where they can contest what happened. The others, the millions of people stopped and searched where nothing was found, just walk away, having been violated, humiliated and treated like pond scum.
The Constitution is not a self-effectuating document. It requires someone to act upon it to challenge police conduct. Otherwise, they are words without meaning, easily thwarted by police invoking the myriad exceptions the courts have provided. And here's an even worse secret: they don't even have to use magic words unless they ultimately find something, arrest a person and want to use it as evidence in court.
They get this. Most people don't. Most people harbor a naïve belief that, despite everything they know about how the police function, there is still some thread of honesty woven through their conduct that somehow makes them behave in accordance with the Constitution.
There are some excellent videos and writings about how to best conduct oneself to properly invoke constitutional rights and to create countervailing evidence to support one's invocation. The pervasiveness of video is a huge factor in showing that police have manufactured claims and false allegations, and these go a long way in keeping police clean where in the past they could make up anything they want to and there would be no way to challenge them.
But these rights we love so dearly don't happen on their own. Someone has to make them happen. We make them happen. And if we don't, then we're left on the side of the road with our Maserati in pieces cursing. The cops have magic words, but constitutional rights aren't magic. They only happen if we make them.
© 2007-13 Simple Justice NY LLC. This feed is for personal, non-commercial & Newstex use only. The use of this feed on any other website is a copyright violation. If this feed is not via RSS reader or Newstex, it infringes the copyright.
Source: http://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/07/08/magic-words-magic-rights.aspx?ref=rss
cyber law defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)