Three years after the startling arrest of a 14-year-old for acting as a gang's assassin in Mexico, the boy, now 17, is reportedly heading to the United States, according to media and government reports. Edgar Jimenez, nicknamed El Ponchis — "The Cloak" — is a U.S. citizen who was born in San Diego.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Inside BU Law’s Housing, Employment, Family and Disability Clinic
Law students who participate in the Civil Litigation Program's Housing, Employment, Family and Disability Clinic work for credit under the supervision of four full-time BU clinical faculty. They can represent anyone from tenants in eviction defenses in housing court, to parties in divorces in probate court. Host David Yas, a BU Law alum, former publisher of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly and a V.P. at Bernstein Global Wealth, sits down with Professor Robert G. Burdick, director of the Civil Law Clinical Program, to talk about how the clinic works, and the real life training that students gain by participating in this clinic.
local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney need a lawyer
Supreme Court Watch: Employment law cases
We will be watching three pending cases at the US Supreme Court as the Court's session opens today:
Kloeckner v. Solis
Oral argument on October 2.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hears appeals by federal employees regarding certain adverse actions, such as dismissals. If the employee asserts that the challenged action was the result of unlawful discrimination, that claim is referred to as a "mixed case."
Question Presented: If the MSPB decides a mixed case without determining the merits of the discrimination claim, is the court with jurisdiction over that claim the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or a district court?
Vance v. Ball State Univ
Oral argument on November 26.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) held that under Title VII, an employer is vicariously liable for workplace harassment by a supervisor of the victim. If the harasser was the victim’s co-employee, however, the employer is not liable absent proof of negligence.
Question Presented: Whether the Faragher and Ellerth “supervisor” liability rule (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.
Genesis HealthCare v. Symczyk
Oral argument December 3.
Symczk sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. This was a section 216(b) collective action. The defendants extended an offer of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in full satisfaction of her alleged damages, fees, and costs - prior to her moving for conditional certification and prior to other potential plaintiffs opting in.
Question Presented: Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/10/supreme_court_w_11.html
CARRM: The Future of Computer Assisted Review
The ESI Report’s Michele Lange, Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership at Kroll Ontrack invited George Socha and Tom Palladino to discuss The Computer Assisted Review Reference Model (CARRM). This is EDRM’s newest venture which is being designed to make computer assisted review easy to understand.
• George Socha is the president and founder of Socha Consulting LLC, an electronic discovery consulting firm. In 2003 he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Socha-Gelbman Electronic Discovery Survey, now Apersee. and in 2005 they started EDRM. George is an advisor and expert witness who focuses on the full range of eDiscovery activities. His clients include corporations, governmental agencies, legal vertical market software and services providers, investment firms and law firms. Before launching his consulting firm, George spent 16 years as a litigation attorney in private practice.
• Tom Palladino is the President of NightOwl Discovery, a leading national provider of technology-driven corporate discovery management and litigation readiness consulting services. Tom is a certified eDiscovery specialist (CEDS) and has extensive experience in large-scale discovery management, software development and corporate managed services. Tom is active in working groups for EDRM, serves as a guest instructor at the University of Minnesota Law School, teaches frequent CLE courses and has participated in the Sedona Conference. Before joining NightOwl, Tom co-founded Hire Quality, Inc., where he designed and deployed major service programs for Fortune 100 companies including UPS, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell, IKON Office Solutions and MBNA Bank.
Socha and Palladino are some of the contributors of the CARRM. This episode will focus on the development of this new computer assisted review model within the ediscovery industry.
• George Socha is the president and founder of Socha Consulting LLC, an electronic discovery consulting firm. In 2003 he and Tom Gelbmann launched the Socha-Gelbman Electronic Discovery Survey, now Apersee. and in 2005 they started EDRM. George is an advisor and expert witness who focuses on the full range of eDiscovery activities. His clients include corporations, governmental agencies, legal vertical market software and services providers, investment firms and law firms. Before launching his consulting firm, George spent 16 years as a litigation attorney in private practice.
• Tom Palladino is the President of NightOwl Discovery, a leading national provider of technology-driven corporate discovery management and litigation readiness consulting services. Tom is a certified eDiscovery specialist (CEDS) and has extensive experience in large-scale discovery management, software development and corporate managed services. Tom is active in working groups for EDRM, serves as a guest instructor at the University of Minnesota Law School, teaches frequent CLE courses and has participated in the Sedona Conference. Before joining NightOwl, Tom co-founded Hire Quality, Inc., where he designed and deployed major service programs for Fortune 100 companies including UPS, Bell Atlantic, Southwestern Bell, IKON Office Solutions and MBNA Bank.
Socha and Palladino are some of the contributors of the CARRM. This episode will focus on the development of this new computer assisted review model within the ediscovery industry.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/esi-report/2013/04/carrm-the-future-of-computer-assisted-review
personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney power of attorny private attorney
South Africa high court rules authorities must investigate Zimbabwe crimes against humanity
[JURIST] The South African Supreme Court of Appeal [official website] ruled [judgment] Wednesday that South African authorities have a duty to investigate and prosecute international crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed. In the case, National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v. Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre, the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) [advocacy website] and Zimbabwe Exiles Forum (ZEF) submitted a dossier containing evidence of human rights abuses by Zimbabwe officials against Zimbabwe citizens to...
Twitter: A Sleeping Discovery Giant?
Attorney Daniel Cummins and staff reporter Ben Present discuss the emerging issue of social media law. In this installment, the two discuss the differences between Facebook and Twitter, and whether Twitter posts can be discoverable.
private attorney private lawyer pro bono lawyers probate attorney real estate attorney
The AAPD in 2013 and the Fight for People with Disabilities
The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), is the nation's largest disability rights organization, helping many individuals since its inception. In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen joins co-host, Randy Dyer, and special guest, Mark Perriello, the President and CEO of the AAPD, to talk about AAPD’s mission for 2013, all the great things the organization is involved in and the continued fight for people with disabilities.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer
The Legal Marketplace Evolution
On this episode of The Legal Toolkit, your host, Jared Correia, invites Jordan Furlong to discuss how the legal marketplace is changing and how law firms can react. “In the short term,” Furlong begins, “we’re going to see a lot more regulatory reform ending in a small set of really advanced legal services, exclusive to lawyers.” Jordan goes on to prognosticate respecting the specific effects that changes will have upon solo and small firm attorneys, law students and law schools. Despite the disruptive change that will continue to take place in the practice of law, Jordan does, in the long term, see the light at the end of the tunnel for the redefined attorney.
Jordan Furlong is a lawyer, speaker, and consultant based in Canada. He specializes in giving thought-provoking presentations covering the future of the legal marketplace and how to assimilate. Before working as a consultant and speaker, he edited top legal publications, including The Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and The Lawyer’s Weekly. Currently he writes the blog, Law21: Dispatches from a Legal Profession on the Brink, a multiple ABA Blawg 100 honoree. His latest book, Evolutionary Road: A Strategic Guide to Your Law Firm’s Future, is available from Attorney at Work.
Tune in to hear more on the future of legal services: how these will be created, priced, and delivered, and how lawyers can take advantage of the changes.
Jordan Furlong is a lawyer, speaker, and consultant based in Canada. He specializes in giving thought-provoking presentations covering the future of the legal marketplace and how to assimilate. Before working as a consultant and speaker, he edited top legal publications, including The Canadian Bar Association’s magazine National and The Lawyer’s Weekly. Currently he writes the blog, Law21: Dispatches from a Legal Profession on the Brink, a multiple ABA Blawg 100 honoree. His latest book, Evolutionary Road: A Strategic Guide to Your Law Firm’s Future, is available from Attorney at Work.
Tune in to hear more on the future of legal services: how these will be created, priced, and delivered, and how lawyers can take advantage of the changes.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/legal-toolkit/2013/08/the-legal-marketplace-evolution
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer
Friday, November 29, 2013
Who Represents Corporate America
Our annual survey of the law firms that work for the nation's largest companies takes a global focus.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202625300999&rss=rss_nlj
copyright lawyer corporate law corporate lawyer criminal attorney
UN senior official urges Security Council action in Central African Republic
[JURIST] The UN Deputy Secretary-General on Monday briefed [official statement] the UN Security Council [official website] on the quickly deteriorating situation in the Central Africa Republic (CAR) [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive]. On behalf of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official profile], the Deputy Secretary-General explained the mounting human rights violations that have recently been occurring in the CAR, along with the rise in the use of child soldiers as well as sexual violence, which are a result of the recent...
lawyer directory lawyer fees lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office
The Day Tripper Dilemma
If I was hoping to court the legally-ignorant, politically conservative reader, yesterday would not have been a good day for me. While lawprof Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit, couldn't be bothered to learn about the criminal justice system before opining about how to fix it, he had time to write about how mean I was to him. Not terribly surprising, given how lawprofs tend to be a bit sensitive,
What came of Reynolds' post was a curious thing, a swarm of his followers commenting in his defense. Most were just silly, reflecting the folks who follow his political agenda, and good for some lulz, but they raised an interesting dilemma: lacking education, practical experience or sufficient interest to learn about the substantive issues and problems involved, they ripped me a new one because the post here to which they were directed was the culmination of both numerous posts about Reynolds' disastrous Ham Sandwich Nation "fix" for the criminal justice system and even more numerous posts on the underlying issues.
One commenter made a good point, that my telling them to read a bunch of posts that would provide the substance that isn't in the one post to which they were directed is "weaksauce." He's right. It's not that this matters much, as they haven't come because they have any sincere interest in the subject. If they did, they would already be knowledgeable and wouldn't demand to be taught from the ground up.
But then, to the extent this is anything other than a humorous aside for those of us who are involved in criminal justice issues, it's an opportunity to educate the poor souls who are limited by Reynolds deep commentary (Heh?), and their point that the one post they read wasn't substantive is well-taken.
So if they can't be expected to read a hundred posts (and it's not really reasonable to expect them to do so), they lack any foundational knowledge on the subject and they're generally disinclined to disagree with their political guru, is there any way to address this gap?
Bear in mind that when the post that made Reynolds cry was written, it wasn't for the purpose of educating his followers but as the coda in the series of posts about his awful ideas to fix the system at the expense of defendants, which in turn was based on innumerable posts here about specific issues and problems with the system. Way too much to include in one post (and likely one full-length book, for that matter), and completely unnecessary for regular readers here or people who are knowledgeable about criminal law.
Obviously, I can't go back and rewrite the post as Criminal Law 101 for the benefit of Instapundit readers, with lengthy explanations that are obvious to the rest of us. Perhaps I should have anticipated that Reynolds would get all butthurt about it, write a post with his deepest thoughts, and cause an influx of his readers to come here to salvage his damaged dignity, but I didn't. And even if I had, it would have bored the daylights out of regular readers here. As SJ is neither political nor a plea for popularity among the Instapundit fans, the idea of writing a post in anticipation of the swarm seems outlandish.
One answer could be found on the flip side, if only Reynolds had an appreciation of the more thoughtful legal and practical impact of his politically driven ideas, such that his purportedly well-intended, if misguided, fixes were themselves more substantive, but it's hardly useful to blame the guy who proffers bad ideas for not understanding why his ideas are bad. If he did, he wouldn't have done so in the first place.
One might expect him, as a lawprof, to try to gain a far better basis of knowledge before going off, but that was one of the primary points of my rant about Reynolds in the first place. And he's playing to a political audience (which is a large part of the problem) rather than to an audience knowledgeable or seriously concerned about criminal law. It's easy to pass off shallow ideas to those who know nothing about the practical impact.
Yet, I missed an opportunity to educate a not insignificant group of day trippers who think they've got a clue because they read tripe like Reynolds' Ham Sandwich Nation. It's a shame to pass up an opportunity like that. It's a dilemma. I regret not having done a far better job of making use of the opportunity to illuminate.
© 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.
What came of Reynolds' post was a curious thing, a swarm of his followers commenting in his defense. Most were just silly, reflecting the folks who follow his political agenda, and good for some lulz, but they raised an interesting dilemma: lacking education, practical experience or sufficient interest to learn about the substantive issues and problems involved, they ripped me a new one because the post here to which they were directed was the culmination of both numerous posts about Reynolds' disastrous Ham Sandwich Nation "fix" for the criminal justice system and even more numerous posts on the underlying issues.
One commenter made a good point, that my telling them to read a bunch of posts that would provide the substance that isn't in the one post to which they were directed is "weaksauce." He's right. It's not that this matters much, as they haven't come because they have any sincere interest in the subject. If they did, they would already be knowledgeable and wouldn't demand to be taught from the ground up.
But then, to the extent this is anything other than a humorous aside for those of us who are involved in criminal justice issues, it's an opportunity to educate the poor souls who are limited by Reynolds deep commentary (Heh?), and their point that the one post they read wasn't substantive is well-taken.
So if they can't be expected to read a hundred posts (and it's not really reasonable to expect them to do so), they lack any foundational knowledge on the subject and they're generally disinclined to disagree with their political guru, is there any way to address this gap?
Bear in mind that when the post that made Reynolds cry was written, it wasn't for the purpose of educating his followers but as the coda in the series of posts about his awful ideas to fix the system at the expense of defendants, which in turn was based on innumerable posts here about specific issues and problems with the system. Way too much to include in one post (and likely one full-length book, for that matter), and completely unnecessary for regular readers here or people who are knowledgeable about criminal law.
Obviously, I can't go back and rewrite the post as Criminal Law 101 for the benefit of Instapundit readers, with lengthy explanations that are obvious to the rest of us. Perhaps I should have anticipated that Reynolds would get all butthurt about it, write a post with his deepest thoughts, and cause an influx of his readers to come here to salvage his damaged dignity, but I didn't. And even if I had, it would have bored the daylights out of regular readers here. As SJ is neither political nor a plea for popularity among the Instapundit fans, the idea of writing a post in anticipation of the swarm seems outlandish.
One answer could be found on the flip side, if only Reynolds had an appreciation of the more thoughtful legal and practical impact of his politically driven ideas, such that his purportedly well-intended, if misguided, fixes were themselves more substantive, but it's hardly useful to blame the guy who proffers bad ideas for not understanding why his ideas are bad. If he did, he wouldn't have done so in the first place.
One might expect him, as a lawprof, to try to gain a far better basis of knowledge before going off, but that was one of the primary points of my rant about Reynolds in the first place. And he's playing to a political audience (which is a large part of the problem) rather than to an audience knowledgeable or seriously concerned about criminal law. It's easy to pass off shallow ideas to those who know nothing about the practical impact.
Yet, I missed an opportunity to educate a not insignificant group of day trippers who think they've got a clue because they read tripe like Reynolds' Ham Sandwich Nation. It's a shame to pass up an opportunity like that. It's a dilemma. I regret not having done a far better job of making use of the opportunity to illuminate.
© 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/2013/07/12/the-day-tripper-dilemma.aspx?ref=rss
Paralegals Are Key in Witness Preparation
Katherine James was getting her masters in acting when her mentor was called to jury duty. The stories he had after his experience in court inspired her to open ACT of Communication: Consultants in the Art of Advocacy. The organization brings state-of-the-art communication skills to attorneys and their witnesses. James uses what she learned in acting school, like the importance of eye contact and clear communication, to prep attorneys and witnesses for the courtroom. With more than 30 years of experience, she has helped take more than 15,000 cases to trial.
On this edition of The Paralegal Voice host Vicki Voisin talks with James about her career in witness preparation and the importance of paralegals in her work. James stresses that paralegals are the key to getting to know witnesses, the first step to making them feel comfortable with their role in the case. She also provides tips for witness preparation such as practicing on camera, the importance of appearance and wardrobe, and more.
There is also a surprise interview at the end of the show where listeners can get to know Jericka Lyon, fellow paralegal and winner of a trip to Los Angeles and tickets to the Dancing With the Stars Finale through the Legal Talk Network giveaway!
Special thanks to our sponsor, National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA).
On this edition of The Paralegal Voice host Vicki Voisin talks with James about her career in witness preparation and the importance of paralegals in her work. James stresses that paralegals are the key to getting to know witnesses, the first step to making them feel comfortable with their role in the case. She also provides tips for witness preparation such as practicing on camera, the importance of appearance and wardrobe, and more.
There is also a surprise interview at the end of the show where listeners can get to know Jericka Lyon, fellow paralegal and winner of a trip to Los Angeles and tickets to the Dancing With the Stars Finale through the Legal Talk Network giveaway!
Special thanks to our sponsor, National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA).
corporate lawyer criminal attorney criminal defence lawyer criminal defense criminal defense attorney
Strategies for Building Your Law Practice: You’ve Started Up, Now What?
“The tools that help you get set up have never been cheaper or easier to access,” says Erik Mazzone, a law practice management advisor with a focus in technology. If you can’t fully run your practice from your mobile phone, he continues, you’re behind. Mazzone talks with Digital Edge hosts Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and Jim Calloway about what you need to know when starting a law practice.
Erik Mazzone is the Director of the Center for Practice Management for the North Carolina Bar Association, where he advises lawyers on technology and practice management. He is a columnist for North Carolina Lawyer Magazine and ABA Law Practice Magazine, as well as a former columnist for TechnoLawyer. He is a graduate of Boston College and Boston College Law School.
Hear more on how to maintain and strengthen your practice, and hear specifics on budgeting, website creation and management, online marketing, and more.
Erik Mazzone is the Director of the Center for Practice Management for the North Carolina Bar Association, where he advises lawyers on technology and practice management. He is a columnist for North Carolina Lawyer Magazine and ABA Law Practice Magazine, as well as a former columnist for TechnoLawyer. He is a graduate of Boston College and Boston College Law School.
Hear more on how to maintain and strengthen your practice, and hear specifics on budgeting, website creation and management, online marketing, and more.
lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers
Sekisui Am. Corp v. Hart: Federal Rule Makers, Take Note
Judge Shira Scheindlin, an influential voice in e-discovery, recently decided Sekisui Am. Corp. v. Hart which could serve as a new standard when it comes to e-discovery preservation requirements. Overturning Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, Scheindlin leveraged this spoliation case to address potential amendments to The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding preservation, specifically Rule 37(e). On this edition of The ESI Report, Kroll Ontrack’s Director of Thought Leadership Michele Lange invites e-discovery experts Adam and Catherine Losey to analyze the case ruling and its possible outcomes for the e-discovery field.
• Adam Losey is the president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex, a non-profit organization dedicated to educational, literary, and scientific advancement in the field of technology law. He has taught e-discovery as part of Columbia's Information and Digital Resource Management Master's Program. Losey is a member of the New York, Florida, and District of Columbia bars.
• Catherine Losey is currently a litigation attorney for Akerman law firm. She has a diverse practice in state and federal court that includes litigating commercial disputes, labor and employment matters, family and probate matters, and ERISA cases. In October she will join Littler Mendelson’s e-discovery practice group.
• Adam Losey is the president and editor-in-chief of IT-Lex, a non-profit organization dedicated to educational, literary, and scientific advancement in the field of technology law. He has taught e-discovery as part of Columbia's Information and Digital Resource Management Master's Program. Losey is a member of the New York, Florida, and District of Columbia bars.
• Catherine Losey is currently a litigation attorney for Akerman law firm. She has a diverse practice in state and federal court that includes litigating commercial disputes, labor and employment matters, family and probate matters, and ERISA cases. In October she will join Littler Mendelson’s e-discovery practice group.
traffic lawyer traffic ticket lawyer absolute power of attorney attorney attorney at law
The AAPD in 2013 and the Fight for People with Disabilities
The American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD), is the nation's largest disability rights organization, helping many individuals since its inception. In this podcast, Ringler Radio host Larry Cohen joins co-host, Randy Dyer, and special guest, Mark Perriello, the President and CEO of the AAPD, to talk about AAPD’s mission for 2013, all the great things the organization is involved in and the continued fight for people with disabilities.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
The American Association of People with Disabilities 2013 Leadership Awards Gala will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The AAPD is the nation’s largest "Cross Disability" organization and has raised over $1.7 Million for the 2013 Gala-an all-time record! In addition, over 25 members of Congress plan to attend.
legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society
Cyber Risk Management for Lawyers
Lawyers hold some of their clients’ most private communications, which makes them a top target of all hackers. As technology competence becomes the required norm, lawyers need to understand not only how to protect their clients’ information but how to react if a cyber attack does happen. On this episode of Digital Detectives, Sharon D. Nelson, Esq. and John W. Simek invite Steven Chabinsky to discuss cyber-risk management for lawyers.
Steven Chabinsky is senior vice president of legal affairs, general counsel, and chief risk officer for the cyber-security-technology firm CrowdStrike. He is also is an adjunct faculty member of George Washington University and the cyber columnist for Security Magazine. Prior to joining CrowdStrike, Chabinsky had a distinguished 17-year career with the FBI, during which he was the top cyber lawyer, then the head of the Cyber Intelligence Section, and ultimately deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division.
Tune in to hear the major threats law firms are facing, what lawyers should do if their systems are hacked, and the future of cyber threats and cyber security.
Thanks to our sponsor, The Digital WarRoom.
Steven Chabinsky is senior vice president of legal affairs, general counsel, and chief risk officer for the cyber-security-technology firm CrowdStrike. He is also is an adjunct faculty member of George Washington University and the cyber columnist for Security Magazine. Prior to joining CrowdStrike, Chabinsky had a distinguished 17-year career with the FBI, during which he was the top cyber lawyer, then the head of the Cyber Intelligence Section, and ultimately deputy assistant director of the FBI's Cyber Division.
Tune in to hear the major threats law firms are facing, what lawyers should do if their systems are hacked, and the future of cyber threats and cyber security.
Thanks to our sponsor, The Digital WarRoom.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/09/cyber-risk-management-for-lawyers
criminal defense attorneys criminal defense lawyer criminal injury lawyers criminal justice lawyer criminal law
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Imprisoned Ukraine opposition leader pledges hunger strike in support of protesters
[JURIST] Ukraine's imprisoned opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko [personal website; JURIST news archive] announced on Monday [press release] that she would go on a hunger strike to show her support [Guardian report] for the demonstrators who have been protesting Ukraine's decision to abandon a planned EU trade pact. Demonstrators allege that Ukraine has caved to pressure from Russia. Tymoshenko, the former Ukrainian prime minister, was sentenced to seven years in prison [JURIST report] on charges of abuse of power and corruption....
legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society
Second Circuit Applies Morrison to Criminal Prosecution Under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
In United States v. Vilar, Case Nos. 10-521(L), 10-580(CON), 10-4639(CON), 2013 WL 4608948 (2d Cir. Aug. 30, 2013), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Securities & Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, do not apply to extraterritorial conduct in both the civil and criminal context. In so holding, the Second Circuit made clear that the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) [blog article here], that civil liability under Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially, extends to criminal conduct as well. In light of that ruling, a criminal conviction for securities fraud can only be found if the defendant “engaged in fraud in connection with (1) a security listed on a U.S. exchange, or (2) a security purchased or sold in the United States.” While this holding did not disturb the defendants’ convictions in this case, the ruling provides guidance for future prosecutions under Section 10(b), which now require proof of a domestic sale or listing as a necessary element for conviction.
From the mid-1980s through their arrest in 2005, defendants Alberto Vilar and Gary Alan Tanaka worked as investment managers and advisors using a number of domestic and off-shore companies as vehicles for the investments that they managed. Vilar and Tanaka’s troubles began after the technology bubble burst in late 2000. Over the prior decade, Vilar and Tanaka had been offering investors the opportunity to invest in “Guaranteed Fixed Rate Deposit Accounts” (“GFARDAs”), which purportedly consisted of high-quality, short-term deposits, such as U.S. Treasury bills, with no more than 25% of the accounts to be invested in emerging growth stocks. However, the GFARDAs were not, in fact, secure investments and were instead fully invested in highly volatile technology and biotechnology stocks.
After the precipitous decline in technology securities of the early 2000s, Vilar and Tanaka struggled to sustain their business. In June 2002, they approached a long-standing client, Lilly Cates, and sought to sell her on a new investment that would purportedly invest in small businesses and obtain matching funds from the federal government. However, Vilar and Tanaka had never been approved for such matching funds, and the investment did not exist. Cates ultimately invested $5 million in the fictitious fund.
Upon depositing Cates’ money into a company bank account, Vilar and Tanaka began using the funds to satisfy their own personal and corporate obligations. By early 2005, Cates became suspicious of Vilar and Tanaka’s activity and ultimately reported them to the SEC. On August 15, 2006, Vilar and Tanaka were indicted on twelve total counts including securities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and making false statements to the SEC. After a nine-week jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Vilar was convicted on all counts and Tanaka was convicted of conspiracy and certain of the securities fraud counts.
On appeal, Vilar and Tanaka raised a number of challenges to their convictions and sentences. The Second Circuit focused primarily on the issue of whether defendants’ convictions could be sustained in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Morrison that Section 10(b) does not apply extraterritorially. In doing so, the Court addressed whether the Morrison holding applied in the criminal context, and, if so, whether the government proved that Vilar and Tanaka engaged in fraud with respect to a security listed on an American exchange or a security purchased or sold in the United States. The Second Circuit held that Morrison clearly extended the limitation on Section 10(b) to criminal as well as civil liability.
Acknowledging that there was no allegation that the securities at issue were listed on a U.S. stock exchange, the Second Circuit next considered whether a jury would have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Vilar and Tanaka engaged in fraud in connection with a domestic purchase or sale of securities. In addressing this issue, the Court considered evidence presented at trial that Cates, as well as certain of the GFARDA investors, signed investment materials, received letters and met with Vilar and Tanaka in the United States. In light of these facts, the Second Circuit determined that the jury would have found that Vilar and Tanaka engaged in fraud in connection with securities while in the United States if the jury had been instructed to consider that question. While this conviction withstood that careful scrutiny, in the wake of Morrison and this case, juries and courts now must consider and make a factual finding as to whether the fraud at issue in a Section 10(b) case occurred domestically.
The Second Circuit also considered the extraterritoriality element in connection with the calculation of the loss sustained by Vilar and Tanaka’s victims for the purposes of determining their sentences and restitution obligations. The Second Circuit held that the district court was required to consider whether the defendants’ relevant criminal conduct with respect to each transaction involved domestic securities, before it could consider those transactions in calculating defendants’ restitution obligations or sentences. Thus, the case was remanded to the district court to recalculate the defendants’ sentences and restitution in light of the ruling that Section 10(b) cannot apply abroad.
The Second Circuit was also asked to consider a number of other alleged errors at trial. One of those issues was whether Section 10(b) required proof that the victims of a fraudulent scheme actually relied upon the alleged material misrepresentations or omissions at issue. The Court ultimately held that reliance is not a necessary element when the government seeks to subject a defendant to civil or criminal liability under Section 10(b). The Court similarly rejected Vilar and Tanaka’s other challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial and the propriety of certain search warrants and jury instructions. It also declined to consider Vilar’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument.
For further information, please contact John Stigi at (310) 228-3717, Jeff Kern at (212) 634-3075 or Thomas Monahan at (212) 634-3019.
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer
The Controversial War on Drugs
Back in 1971, Richard Nixon declared a "war on drugs" claiming "America’s Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States is drug abuse". Forty years later, we are still waging a war against drugs. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams join Ethan Nadelmann, founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance and Judge Jim Gray, author of Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, as they spotlight the controversial war on drugs including: the legalization of Marijuana, the rise in prescription drug use, sentencing reform and what needs to happen legally to eliminate this growing problem.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/07/the-controversial-war-on-drugs/
bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
Recommendations for a Social, Mobile and Global Legal Profession
The ABA Commission on Ethics 20/20 has released its latest recommendations so that the rules and ethics of the legal profession keep up with the incredible pace of technology. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, get the details from the ABA Commission’s Chief Reporter, Professor Andrew Perlman, and debate these suggestions with Attorney Bradley Shear.
litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer local solicitors mold attorney
Execute a Long-Term Technology Strategy
For today’s corporate law departments faced with the challenge of doing more with less, a legal matter and spend management system is almost an imperative. In this edition of Tech Experts, Mandy Purington, a Managing Director in Datacert’s professional services group, shares best practices and practical tips for keeping your department’s legal matter and spend management system implementation project on-time and on-budget, while also ensuring that it supports your department’s long-term technology strategy.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/tech-experts/2012/09/execute-a-long-term-technology-strategy/
green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer
What’s next for the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments
On this edition of The ESI Report, Kroll Ontrack’s Attorney and Director of Thought Leadership Michele Lange discusses the proposed amendments of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and what effects they will have on e-discovery with Thomas Allman.
Allman works as an attorney and a consultant, as well as an adjunct professor for the University of Cincinnati College of Law. He writes and speaks frequently on the interrelationship of corporate compliance policy and the effective management of electronically stored information. He has been involved in the FRCP Amendments since the last round of changes in 2006.
Lange and Allman will cover the basic rule changes, when they will be brought to public forum for comment, and how you can get involved. You can access an explanation of the amendments on Kroll Ontrack’s The E-Discovery Blog.
Allman works as an attorney and a consultant, as well as an adjunct professor for the University of Cincinnati College of Law. He writes and speaks frequently on the interrelationship of corporate compliance policy and the effective management of electronically stored information. He has been involved in the FRCP Amendments since the last round of changes in 2006.
Lange and Allman will cover the basic rule changes, when they will be brought to public forum for comment, and how you can get involved. You can access an explanation of the amendments on Kroll Ontrack’s The E-Discovery Blog.
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
Chat with Two National Leaders of the Workers' Comp Bar
On the May edition of Workers’ Comp Matters Host and Attorney Alan Pierce talks with two highly-respected guests in the field of workers’ compensation attorneys. The first half of the show he will speak with President of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group (WILG) Cathy Stanton regarding proposed Federal legislation reforming the law regarding the Medicare Set-aside requirements as well as the recently enacted SMART Act.
Cathy Stanton is an attorney with experience in dealing with all types of workers’ compensation claims, including those related to occupational diseases. In addition to being the president of WILG, she is also a member of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and other organizations. Stanton has been named Super Lawyer for 2012 in the specialty of Workers’ Compensation by Super Lawyers magazine, this is her 6th time receiving the award.
The second half of the show Pierce will chat with Deborah Kohl, past president of WILG, and current president of The College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers about the college and it’s efforts.
Deborah Kohl has been an attorney working in the area of workers’ compensation and disability law for more than 30 years. Kohl has been listed in the national publication Best Lawyers in America and is a frequent author and speaker on workers’ compensation law.
Cathy Stanton is an attorney with experience in dealing with all types of workers’ compensation claims, including those related to occupational diseases. In addition to being the president of WILG, she is also a member of the New York State Trial Lawyers Association and other organizations. Stanton has been named Super Lawyer for 2012 in the specialty of Workers’ Compensation by Super Lawyers magazine, this is her 6th time receiving the award.
The second half of the show Pierce will chat with Deborah Kohl, past president of WILG, and current president of The College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers about the college and it’s efforts.
Deborah Kohl has been an attorney working in the area of workers’ compensation and disability law for more than 30 years. Kohl has been listed in the national publication Best Lawyers in America and is a frequent author and speaker on workers’ compensation law.
discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney
Defending Big Data
On this October edition of Law Technology Now, host Monica Bay, editor-in-chief of ALM’s Law Technology News, chats with Mark Melodia, partner at Reed Smith and Antony Kim, a partner at Orrick, to discuss the Law Technology News October cover story, Defending Big Data.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/law-technology-now/2012/10/defending-big-data/
legal legal advice legal advice online legal aid legal aid eugene oregon
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
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/
government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney immigration law
Lawyer2Lawyer: A Retrospective
We started Lawyer2Lawyer back in August of 2005 with the idea of providing quality content and discussion of timely legal news and information for the legal profession with regularly published podcasts and often videos too. Since our inception, we have set the precedent for legal podcasting in numbers of listeners globally, but more importantly, we’ve been one of the leaders in great content - our priority over the past 7 years. On this final edition of Lawyer2Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and Craig Williams, talk about their personal experiences over the years with this legal podcast.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/2012/10/lawyer2lawyer-a-retrospective/
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
Entropy: It's Not What It Used To Be*
In thermodynamics, entropy is the measure of how things go from order to disorder. Its application is far broader, however, applying to life in general. For those of us, like me, who strive to maintain order, it is the enemy.
My ability to do what I do, to function, depends on my maintaining order. In a world of chaos, it's a constant battle. No man is an island, and so almost every function relies to some greater or lesser extent on interactions with others. In order to prepare an affidavit, a person must take or return my phone call, do so in time for me to get their words on paper in both an accurate and comprehensible manner, make sure I've captured their thoughts properly, get it executed and file and serve the document. If the person decides that he would rather go to the beach than speak with me, but will get back to me later, the entire scheme can fall apart. A call back on Monday at 11 doesn't help when the papers are due Monday at 9.
When I explain how their conduct affected my ability to do my job, the response is one of two things: "Oh, I didn't realize," or "you should have told me that before." Of course, I can't tell you anything if you don't take or return my call. "Oh."
It's a fragile set up at best. Some people are reliable in a way that allows other to count on them, to plan ahead and not find themselves in a quagmire from which they can't emerge. These are people who make other people's lives go smoothly. They tend to be somewhere along the anal compulsive spectrum, which sounds pretty nasty but is actually a really good thing for organized people, especially lawyers.
Others are chaos personified, off in the thousand directions without any thought whatsoever to the consequences for themselves or those who rely on them. Their alternative to order is their tolerance of disorder. It's not that they don't eventually come to realize what they failed to accomplish because of their chaotic approach to responsibility, but that they can live with themselves that way.
The other day, a massive failure to accomplish a task upon which I relied was explained to me as the result of unforeseen circumstances. It wasn't quite true. Getting hit by a truck is an unforeseen circumstances. Making overly optimistic promises which you chose not to keep when time or interest gets tight is not an unforeseen circumstances. It's life.
There is a difference between explanations and excuses. When something doesn't go as intended, which happens despite best efforts and planning, there is either an explanation or it was just a screw-up. If the former, then there is a reason. If there is no reason, then it's a screw-up. Yes, screw-ups happen. No, they don't have to. Are they your fault? Yes. That's why we call them screw-ups.
Excuses are a different animal. Excuses are explanations that shift the fault onto the party who caused the problem. Most are imperfect, in that fault is born by more than one party, often all parties, who either failed to do what they should have, or said they would, as well as parties who failed to anticipate or accommodate the chaos wrought by others involved. See how that works? We knew that other people screw-up, and so we assume the responsibility of inserting that potential in our equation of order. When we organize our world, we do so in anticipation of entropy.
It's all a choice. Frankly, the failure to realize this, to conduct oneself as an island of order in a world tending toward chaos, to both live an ordered life and recognize that others don't or won't, is a choice. If you want to do what you can to do better, be more responsible, keep your promises to others despite reliance on those who infuse their chaos into your world, you can. But you must make the choice.
It's hard to fight entropy, but those who do keep the world running.
* The title is brazenly stolen from Buzzfeed's 21 Jokes Only Nerds Will Understand.
© 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.
My ability to do what I do, to function, depends on my maintaining order. In a world of chaos, it's a constant battle. No man is an island, and so almost every function relies to some greater or lesser extent on interactions with others. In order to prepare an affidavit, a person must take or return my phone call, do so in time for me to get their words on paper in both an accurate and comprehensible manner, make sure I've captured their thoughts properly, get it executed and file and serve the document. If the person decides that he would rather go to the beach than speak with me, but will get back to me later, the entire scheme can fall apart. A call back on Monday at 11 doesn't help when the papers are due Monday at 9.
When I explain how their conduct affected my ability to do my job, the response is one of two things: "Oh, I didn't realize," or "you should have told me that before." Of course, I can't tell you anything if you don't take or return my call. "Oh."
It's a fragile set up at best. Some people are reliable in a way that allows other to count on them, to plan ahead and not find themselves in a quagmire from which they can't emerge. These are people who make other people's lives go smoothly. They tend to be somewhere along the anal compulsive spectrum, which sounds pretty nasty but is actually a really good thing for organized people, especially lawyers.
Others are chaos personified, off in the thousand directions without any thought whatsoever to the consequences for themselves or those who rely on them. Their alternative to order is their tolerance of disorder. It's not that they don't eventually come to realize what they failed to accomplish because of their chaotic approach to responsibility, but that they can live with themselves that way.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,Then again, it has nothing to do with God. It has to do with us. We make choices. If you're inclined to believe in a deity, then know that the deity imbued you with the power to make wise or foolish choices, and left it to you to decide which.
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.When I'm asked how I manage to get as much done in a day as I do, the answer is order. I organize. I plan ahead. I try to anticipate the chaos I will confront in the course of trying to get things done so that I can accommodate it as much as possible, and will give myself enough room so that someone else's choice of disorder won't completely undermine what I need to accomplish.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
The other day, a massive failure to accomplish a task upon which I relied was explained to me as the result of unforeseen circumstances. It wasn't quite true. Getting hit by a truck is an unforeseen circumstances. Making overly optimistic promises which you chose not to keep when time or interest gets tight is not an unforeseen circumstances. It's life.
There is a difference between explanations and excuses. When something doesn't go as intended, which happens despite best efforts and planning, there is either an explanation or it was just a screw-up. If the former, then there is a reason. If there is no reason, then it's a screw-up. Yes, screw-ups happen. No, they don't have to. Are they your fault? Yes. That's why we call them screw-ups.
Excuses are a different animal. Excuses are explanations that shift the fault onto the party who caused the problem. Most are imperfect, in that fault is born by more than one party, often all parties, who either failed to do what they should have, or said they would, as well as parties who failed to anticipate or accommodate the chaos wrought by others involved. See how that works? We knew that other people screw-up, and so we assume the responsibility of inserting that potential in our equation of order. When we organize our world, we do so in anticipation of entropy.
It's all a choice. Frankly, the failure to realize this, to conduct oneself as an island of order in a world tending toward chaos, to both live an ordered life and recognize that others don't or won't, is a choice. If you want to do what you can to do better, be more responsible, keep your promises to others despite reliance on those who infuse their chaos into your world, you can. But you must make the choice.
It's hard to fight entropy, but those who do keep the world running.
* The title is brazenly stolen from Buzzfeed's 21 Jokes Only Nerds Will Understand.
© 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/2013/07/14/entropy-its-not-what-it-used-to-be.aspx?ref=rss
defense attorney defense lawyer discrimination lawyers district attorney divorce atterney
Scary Tech: Lessons from ABA TECHSHOW 2013
Find out what the experts in computer security saw at ABA TECHSHOW 2013 - things like attendees with no passcode on their tablets or smartphones and people connecting to insecure networks which monitored their data traffic (through a scary device called a Pineapple). Digital Detectives hosts Sharon Nelson, Esq. and John Simek, president and vice president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., welcome Ben Schorr of Roland Schorr to talk about the best ways to secure your home and office devices
Ben Schorr has been a technical consultant for businesses for two decades. Microsoft named him Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for both their Outlook product group and their OneNote product group. He was recently named by the Pacific Technology Foundation as one of the Top 50 Technology Leaders in Hawaii, where he is CEO of Roland Schorr, an IT management and support company.
This episode will help you understand how to connect to the Internet securely when you are out of the office, to create secure passwords for your devices, to keep your security patches up-to-date, to backup and do test restores of your data, and more.
Ben Schorr has been a technical consultant for businesses for two decades. Microsoft named him Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for both their Outlook product group and their OneNote product group. He was recently named by the Pacific Technology Foundation as one of the Top 50 Technology Leaders in Hawaii, where he is CEO of Roland Schorr, an IT management and support company.
This episode will help you understand how to connect to the Internet securely when you are out of the office, to create secure passwords for your devices, to keep your security patches up-to-date, to backup and do test restores of your data, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/04/scary-tech/
So You Say The Car Is Where?
Hey, younger drivers are going to make mistakes, especially after they’ve had something to drink. Here’s the latest installment of “Yikes” as reported by The Hamilton Spectator (Ontario):
A Burlington teen faces careless driving charges after crashing into a home. Halton police say ‘miraculously’ no one was injured when the 19-year-old left the roadway at 10 p.m. Wednesday night.
You’ve got to see the pictures. (Click here.)
The novice driver in a Ford Taurus and a male passenger left the west side of the roadway before crossing the front lawns of two homes. The car struck the front of a house with such impact police say the vehicle’s entire front end was lodged inside.
Think the homeowner was pissed?
“I ran right to the guy (driver) and started yelling at him,” homeowner Kathy Thring told the Burlington Post. “He kept telling me he was sorry. I told him he could have hurt someone.” Thring, her husband Darrin, and two daughters, Taylor, 13, and Sutherlin, 10, were home at the time.
The car remained in the house Thursday morning. Police say main support systems of the home looked to be significantly compromised.
The charges?
Mitchell Bolduc, 19 is charged with careless driving and having a blood alcohol concentration above zero. The accused is a novice driver which under the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, restricts drivers from having any alcohol at all.
Here’s the source.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/zHmZ_0HniIA/mm.html
Scary Tech: Lessons from ABA TECHSHOW 2013
Find out what the experts in computer security saw at ABA TECHSHOW 2013 - things like attendees with no passcode on their tablets or smartphones and people connecting to insecure networks which monitored their data traffic (through a scary device called a Pineapple). Digital Detectives hosts Sharon Nelson, Esq. and John Simek, president and vice president of Sensei Enterprises, Inc., welcome Ben Schorr of Roland Schorr to talk about the best ways to secure your home and office devices
Ben Schorr has been a technical consultant for businesses for two decades. Microsoft named him Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for both their Outlook product group and their OneNote product group. He was recently named by the Pacific Technology Foundation as one of the Top 50 Technology Leaders in Hawaii, where he is CEO of Roland Schorr, an IT management and support company.
This episode will help you understand how to connect to the Internet securely when you are out of the office, to create secure passwords for your devices, to keep your security patches up-to-date, to backup and do test restores of your data, and more.
Ben Schorr has been a technical consultant for businesses for two decades. Microsoft named him Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for both their Outlook product group and their OneNote product group. He was recently named by the Pacific Technology Foundation as one of the Top 50 Technology Leaders in Hawaii, where he is CEO of Roland Schorr, an IT management and support company.
This episode will help you understand how to connect to the Internet securely when you are out of the office, to create secure passwords for your devices, to keep your security patches up-to-date, to backup and do test restores of your data, and more.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/digital-detectives/2013/04/scary-tech/
personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer personal injury lawyers power attorney power of attorney
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
EDRM: Does Your Left Side Know What Your Right Side is Doing?
The left side of the E-Discovery Reference Model is often overshadowed by the right side, Technology Assisted Review. However, even the best TAR protocol will falter if the left side of the EDRM is ignored. From information management to preservation and collection, the early stages of the EDRM are the easiest places for mistakes to spawn in an investigation, regulatory request, or litigation. On this episode of The ESI Report, Michele Lange, Kroll Ontrack’s director of thought leadership, is joined by Kroll Ontrack Solutions Architect Troy Ronning to discuss the left side of the EDRM and why it matters.
Troy Ronning has been working in information management software for more than ten years. Now, he works closely with the Ontrack® PowerControls™ software program. He provides technical support to external software partners and resellers. He also conducts product demonstrations, installations, and training. Ronning is also fluent in Microsoft® Exchange and SharePoint® management.
Tune in to hear the details, challenges, and developments of the left side of the EDRM and why these stages are crucial to your success in e-discovery.
Troy Ronning has been working in information management software for more than ten years. Now, he works closely with the Ontrack® PowerControls™ software program. He provides technical support to external software partners and resellers. He also conducts product demonstrations, installations, and training. Ronning is also fluent in Microsoft® Exchange and SharePoint® management.
Tune in to hear the details, challenges, and developments of the left side of the EDRM and why these stages are crucial to your success in e-discovery.
bankruptcy lawyers best attorney business law business lawyer
Virtual Paralegals: Forming a Magical Team
Are you thinking about working virtually but don’t know how to get started? Paralegal Voice co-host Vicki Voisin welcomes virtual professionals Tina Marie Hilton, owner of Clerical Advantage and Cathy L. Ribble, ACP, owner of Digital Paralegal Services, LLC, to spotlight virtual paralegals and how to form a magical team. Tina and Cathy share their personal experiences, the important skills needed to be a successful virtual professional, as well as the websites and blogs that they visit often for their businesses. They also predict a very bright future for virtual professionals and provide their reasoning for that.
legal information legal news legal services lemon law letter of attorney
Sudan rights commission admits existence of human rights violations
[JURIST] Sudan's National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR) admitted on Thursday during a press conference the existence of human rights violations in the country including restrictions on freedoms and civil and political rights. The NCHR's complaints committee disclosed [ST report] that it received a total of 125 complaints from 2012 and 2013 relating to human rights abuses. NCHR deputy chairperson Joseph Khalil said that most of the complaints involve cases of security and freedoms abuses while some complaints are related...
divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers
Objectors to BP Deal Bail on Appeal—and Their Lawyers
Three objectors to the $9.6 billion Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement have voluntarily withdrawn their appeal—weeks after plaintiffs lawyers moved to dismiss the challenge on the ground that the objectors weren’t actually class members.
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202629646735&rss=rss_nlj
colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer commercial law common law company law
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
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
district attorney divorce atterney divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer
Paralegals Are Key in Witness Preparation
Katherine James was getting her masters in acting when her mentor was called to jury duty. The stories he had after his experience in court inspired her to open ACT of Communication: Consultants in the Art of Advocacy. The organization brings state-of-the-art communication skills to attorneys and their witnesses. James uses what she learned in acting school, like the importance of eye contact and clear communication, to prep attorneys and witnesses for the courtroom. With more than 30 years of experience, she has helped take more than 15,000 cases to trial.
On this edition of The Paralegal Voice host Vicki Voisin talks with James about her career in witness preparation and the importance of paralegals in her work. James stresses that paralegals are the key to getting to know witnesses, the first step to making them feel comfortable with their role in the case. She also provides tips for witness preparation such as practicing on camera, the importance of appearance and wardrobe, and more.
There is also a surprise interview at the end of the show where listeners can get to know Jericka Lyon, fellow paralegal and winner of a trip to Los Angeles and tickets to the Dancing With the Stars Finale through the Legal Talk Network giveaway!
Special thanks to our sponsor, National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA).
On this edition of The Paralegal Voice host Vicki Voisin talks with James about her career in witness preparation and the importance of paralegals in her work. James stresses that paralegals are the key to getting to know witnesses, the first step to making them feel comfortable with their role in the case. She also provides tips for witness preparation such as practicing on camera, the importance of appearance and wardrobe, and more.
There is also a surprise interview at the end of the show where listeners can get to know Jericka Lyon, fellow paralegal and winner of a trip to Los Angeles and tickets to the Dancing With the Stars Finale through the Legal Talk Network giveaway!
Special thanks to our sponsor, National Association of Legal Assistants (NALA).
employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)