LAW PUNDIT Monday, July 06, 2009 7/06/2009 12:01:00 AM [Home]
The Top 10 Most Frequently Accessed United States Supreme Court Decisions at LexisNexis : Significance and Case Commentaries
What United States Supreme Court decisions actually get the most action in legal circles?
TechnoLawyer in its July 1, 2009 TechnoRelease® features the LexisNexis top 10 most frequently accessed United States Supreme Court decisions.
The case citations below are from LexisOne, but the commentary is by LawPundit, linking to selected other websites which discuss these cases. (The full text of US Supreme Court decisions from the year 1781 to the present - are freely accessible at LexisOne, but registration (free) is required.)
The Top 10 cases at LexisNexis are:
1. Terry v. Ohio (freedom from unlawful searches and seizures: the police right to frisk without a warrant was affirmed)
392 U.S. 1; 88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
(see LexisOne, or e.g. Cornell U)
As written about Terry v. Ohio at jrank.org:
393 U.S. 503; 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222
(see LexisOne, or e.g. FindLaw)
The ACLU writes:
550 U.S. 544; 127 S. Ct. 1955; 167 L. Ed. 2d 929; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901; 75 U.S.L.W. 4337; 2007-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75,709; 68 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 661; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267; 41 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 567
(see LexisOne, or e.g Supreme Court of the United States (.pdf))
Scott Dodson at the Virginia Law Review writes in Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly:
551 U.S. 393; 127 S. Ct. 2618; 168 L. Ed. 2d 290; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8514; 75 U.S.L.W. 4487; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 431
(see LexisOne, or e.g. SCOTUS blog)
C. Paul Smith writes at his blog:
I have more than a cursory interest in this subject, having edited John Kaplan's pioneer book: Marijuana: The New Prohibition.
5. Gonzales v. Raich (Commerce Clause, powers of Congress and the federal government: federal U.S. authority permits prohibition of state-allowed local cultivation of marijuana)
545 U.S. 1; 125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S.L.W. 4407; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327
(see LexisOne, or e.g. Justia.com)
Donald C. Arnold, Chief Counsel of the General Counsel Division of the Attorney General's office in the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon, wrote as follows about Gonzales v. Raich:
510 U.S. 569; 114 S. Ct. 1164; 127 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 2052; 62 U.S.L.W. 4169; 29 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1961; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,222; 22 Media L. Rep. 1353; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1662; 94 Daily Journal DAR 2958; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 800
(see LexisOne, or e.g. UCLA Law & Columbia Law School)
As written at the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC):
410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959, 35 L. Ed. 2d 694, 93 S. Ct. 1409, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 3282
(see e.g. Wikipedia)
477 U.S. 317; 106 S. Ct. 2548; 91 L. Ed. 2d 265; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118; 54 U.S.L.W. 4775; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1024
Adam Steinman of the University of Cincinnati College of Law, in The Irrepressible Myth of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years after the Trilogy, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol. 63, 2006, U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 05-16, available at SSRN, writes in the Abstract of that article:
477 U.S. 242; 106 S. Ct. 2505; 91 L. Ed. 2d 202; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 115; 54 U.S.L.W. 4755; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1041; 12 Media L. Rep. 2297
(see LexisOne, or e.g. OpenJurist.org)
10. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq: question of vicarious employer liability for sexual harassment of employee by supervisor)
524 U.S. 742; 118 S. Ct. 2257; 141 L. Ed. 2d 633; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4217; 66 U.S.L.W. 4634; 77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1; 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45,340; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5029; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6991; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3405; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 692
(see LexisOne, or e.g. FindLaw)
The Corporate Compliance Prof Blog first of all quotes the decision in Ellerth:
See the full Top 10 list at LexisNexis.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/06/2009 12:01:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
The Top 10 Most Frequently Accessed United States Supreme Court Decisions at LexisNexis : Significance and Case Commentaries
What United States Supreme Court decisions actually get the most action in legal circles?
TechnoLawyer in its July 1, 2009 TechnoRelease® features the LexisNexis top 10 most frequently accessed United States Supreme Court decisions.
The case citations below are from LexisOne, but the commentary is by LawPundit, linking to selected other websites which discuss these cases. (The full text of US Supreme Court decisions from the year 1781 to the present - are freely accessible at LexisOne, but registration (free) is required.)
The Top 10 cases at LexisNexis are:
1. Terry v. Ohio (freedom from unlawful searches and seizures: the police right to frisk without a warrant was affirmed)
392 U.S. 1; 88 S. Ct. 1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
(see LexisOne, or e.g. Cornell U)
As written about Terry v. Ohio at jrank.org:
"Terry v. Ohio expanded the right of police officers to "stop and frisk" individuals whom they deem to be suspicious....2. Tinker et al. v. Des Moines Independent Community School District et al. (freedom of speech: the right of students to wear peace sign armbands in school was affirmed)
By an 8-1 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the stop and frisk practice....
[T]he "Terry type search" became the standard by which police officers could measure the lawfulness of searches performed without obtaining a warrant."
393 U.S. 503; 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443; 49 Ohio Op. 2d 222
(see LexisOne, or e.g. FindLaw)
The ACLU writes:
"On February 24, 1969 the Court ruled 7-2 that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."3. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly (parallel conduct: without further evidence of agreement, the mere fact of parallel conduct does not constitute a conspiracy under the Section 1 antitrust provision of the Sherman Act)
The Court ruled that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and school officials could not censor student speech unless it disrupted the educational process. Because wearing a black armband was not disruptive, the Court held that the First Amendment protected the right of students to wear one."
550 U.S. 544; 127 S. Ct. 1955; 167 L. Ed. 2d 929; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 5901; 75 U.S.L.W. 4337; 2007-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P75,709; 68 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 661; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 267; 41 Comm. Reg. (P & F) 567
(see LexisOne, or e.g Supreme Court of the United States (.pdf))
Scott Dodson at the Virginia Law Review writes in Pleading Standards After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly:
"To state a Section 1 claim ... the plaintiff must allege facts "plausibly" suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. This "plausibility" standard, while not a "probability" standard, requires "enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of illegal agreement....4. Deborah Morse v. Joseph Frederick (freedom of speech: student speech or action that intrudes upon the work of the schools can be limited by school authorities without violating the free speech rights of students)
The Court ... explained that Conley v. Gibson’s requirement that the complaint "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests" is critical. "[G]rounds," the Court wrote, "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a case of action will not do." In short, some factual allegations must accompany the elements of a claim."
551 U.S. 393; 127 S. Ct. 2618; 168 L. Ed. 2d 290; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 8514; 75 U.S.L.W. 4487; 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 431
(see LexisOne, or e.g. SCOTUS blog)
C. Paul Smith writes at his blog:
"[T]he Supreme Court ruled in Morse v. Frederick ... that Deborah Morse, a high school principal in Alaska, did not violate the free speech rights of one of her students, Joseph Frederick, when she confiscated a 14-foot banner that Frederick displayed at a school event, which banner bore the phrase, “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” and when she suspended Frederick for not complying with her directive to take the banner down....Please note, by the way, as can be read at Wikipedia, that "A bong, also commonly known as a water pipe, is a smoking device, generally used to smoke cannabis, tobacco, or other substances", and that a "bong hit" according to the Urban Dictionary means "to enhale smoke from a bong".
The guiding case with respect to this school speech issue is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969). In that case the Supreme Court allowed students to wear black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War. The Court ruled that unless the speech [the wearing of the armbands] would “materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school,” then the conduct was protected under the First Amendment. In that case the students’ conduct prevailed over the school administrators. But in the case of the “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” banner, the principal said that the banner was taken down because she thought that it promoted illegal drug use. The student denied that this was his intent, and a close analysis of the wording yields uncertainty about what the phrase means. But the majority of the Supreme Court held (and correctly, in my opinion) that the principal’s “on the spot” action to confiscate the banner was a “reasonable” action for her to take in controlling student expressions that could contribute to dangerous conduct."
I have more than a cursory interest in this subject, having edited John Kaplan's pioneer book: Marijuana: The New Prohibition.
5. Gonzales v. Raich (Commerce Clause, powers of Congress and the federal government: federal U.S. authority permits prohibition of state-allowed local cultivation of marijuana)
545 U.S. 1; 125 S. Ct. 2195; 162 L. Ed. 2d 1; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4656; 73 U.S.L.W. 4407; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 327
(see LexisOne, or e.g. Justia.com)
Donald C. Arnold, Chief Counsel of the General Counsel Division of the Attorney General's office in the Department of Justice of the State of Oregon, wrote as follows about Gonzales v. Raich:
"1. Does Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. ___ (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2195, Slip Op. 03-1454, invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program?6. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (Freedom of Speech and Copyrights: Fair Use, Commercial Use, Transformative Use, Parody - a transformative commercial parody - not just a take-off - of a copyright-protected work "could" be permissible as fair use)
No. Raich addresses a narrow constitutional question concerning the power of the federal government to regulate intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause. It does not invalidate the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act (Act), ORS 475.300 to 475.346.
Raich holds that Congress has the authority to prohibit the wholly local cultivation of marijuana even if it is used for medicinal purposes pursuant to California law. Precipitating the lawsuit, federal law enforcement officials in California had seized and destroyed an individual’s cannabis plants, after county officials had concluded that her cultivation of the plants and use of marijuana was lawful under California’s medical marijuana law. The plaintiffs in Raich sued to have enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 USC § 801 et.seq., the law under which the federal officials had acted, declared unconstitutional when applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law. Raich, slip op at 12. Because the CSA classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, with no "currently accepted medical use," its manufacture, distribution or possession is a federal crime. Id. at 11.
The Court concluded that the CSA, as applied to the circumstances of the case, is a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause because Congress had a rational basis upon which to conclude that production of marijuana for local, personal consumption "has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market." Raich, slip op at 16, 19. According to the Court's analysis, there being a number of states authorizing the medical use of marijuana only strengthens its conclusions as to congressional power: "Congress could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision is unquestionably substantial." Id. at 30.
However, Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. Because these issues of the relationship between federal and state authority were not relevant to the case, they are not addressed in the Court’s opinion."
510 U.S. 569; 114 S. Ct. 1164; 127 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1994 U.S. LEXIS 2052; 62 U.S.L.W. 4169; 29 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1961; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P27,222; 22 Media L. Rep. 1353; 94 Cal. Daily Op. Service 1662; 94 Daily Journal DAR 2958; 7 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 800
(see LexisOne, or e.g. UCLA Law & Columbia Law School)
As written at the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC):
"Twenty-five years after the release of Roy Orbisonís song, "Oh Pretty Woman", 2 Live Crew wrote a vulgar parody satirizing the famous rock ballad. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., the owner of the copyright for the song, brought an action against Luther Campbell, the leader of the band 2 Live Crew, for copyright infringement. At issue in this case was the scope of the fair use provision of the Federal Copyright Act, which specifically permits unauthorized use of a work to criticize and comment upon the work. Ultimately, the Supreme Court examined whether 2 Live Crew's commercial parody was indeed a fair use of the original song within the meaning of the Federal Copyright Act."Xyno.de, "the unofficial homepage" of "The 2 Live Crew" writes:
"Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. is probably the seminal case for the modern application of the fair use doctrine. After years of neglect languishing in the back waters of intellectual property, the fair use doctrine received the spotlight from the Supreme Court in 1994. The lightning rod was 2 Live Crew (no stranger to Constitutional controversy) and their allegedly parodic use of the "Pretty Woman" song...."7. Roe v. Wade (Abortion and the Constitution: Abortion is a Constitutional right, derived from the right of privacy)
410 U.S. 113; 93 S. Ct. 705; 35 L. Ed. 2d 147; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 159
rehearing denied, 410 U.S. 959, 35 L. Ed. 2d 694, 93 S. Ct. 1409, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 3282
(see e.g. Wikipedia)
"According to the Roe decision, there is a constitutional right to privacy, guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which disallowed most existing state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history."As written at the website of the ACLU:
"[T]he landmark abortion rights case, Roe v. Wade ... challenged a Texas law prohibiting all but lifesaving abortions. The Supreme Court invalidated the law on the ground that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. Characterizing this right as "fundamental" to a woman's "life and future," the Court held that the state could not interfere with the abortion decision unless it had a compelling reason for regulation. A compelling interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus could be asserted only once it became "viable" (usually at the beginning of the last trimester of pregnancy), and even then a woman had to have access to an abortion if it were necessary to preserve her life or health."8. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (Federal litigation: Summary judgment and evidentiary support for claims : Plaintiff has the burden of showing it has sufficient evidence to proceed with the case)
477 U.S. 317; 106 S. Ct. 2548; 91 L. Ed. 2d 265; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 118; 54 U.S.L.W. 4775; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1024
Adam Steinman of the University of Cincinnati College of Law, in The Irrepressible Myth of Celotex: Reconsidering Summary Judgment Burdens Twenty Years after the Trilogy, Washington & Lee Law Review, Vol. 63, 2006, U of Cincinnati Public Law Research Paper No. 05-16, available at SSRN, writes in the Abstract of that article:
"Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court decided a trilogy of cases on summary judgment. These cases have had a profound impact on federal litigation. Empirical data presented in this article demonstrate that federal courts have cited these three cases more than any Supreme Court decisions in history. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett is widely recognized as the most significant decision of the trilogy, both because it expanded the availability of summary judgment and because it remains the Court's most current instruction on how burdens are allocated between the party seeking and the party opposing judgment."The Celotex trilogy of cases regarding the standard to be applied for summary judgment is nicely described by the High Court of American Samoa Trial Division :
"This standard has been articulated by the Supreme Court in what is commonly referred to as the Celotex trilogy. These cases stand for the proposition that an inadequate showing cannot defeat a moving party's competent motion for summary judgment. In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett ... the court stated " ...the burden on the moving party may be discharged by. .. pointing out. ..that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." In Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 91 L.Ed.2d 202, 212 (1986) (public figure libel action), the court defined a genuine issue of dispute as one in which " ...a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. " The court elaborated: " As [cited cases] indicate, there is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted...." And in Matsushita Elec. Ind. v. Zenith Radio, 89 L.Ed.2d 538, 552 (1986) (antitrust conspiracy case), the court stated: "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no 'genuine issue for trial'...." [emphasis added]9. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (see the Celotex trilogy above)Since the Celotex trilogy, the above standard has been used throughout the federal system."
477 U.S. 242; 106 S. Ct. 2505; 91 L. Ed. 2d 202; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 115; 54 U.S.L.W. 4755; 4 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1041; 12 Media L. Rep. 2297
(see LexisOne, or e.g. OpenJurist.org)
10. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq: question of vicarious employer liability for sexual harassment of employee by supervisor)
524 U.S. 742; 118 S. Ct. 2257; 141 L. Ed. 2d 633; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4217; 66 U.S.L.W. 4634; 77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1; 73 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P45,340; 98 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5029; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6991; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3405; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 692
(see LexisOne, or e.g. FindLaw)
The Corporate Compliance Prof Blog first of all quotes the decision in Ellerth:
"An employer is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized employee for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate (or successively higher) authority over the employee....and then writes:
When no tangible employment action is taken, a defending employer may raise an affirmative defense to liability or damages, subject to proof by a preponderance of the evidence.... The defense comprises two necessary elements: (a) that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and (b) that the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise."
"So, here is a quick summary of employer vicarious liability under Ellerth:
- The plaintiff carries her burden by proving that a supervisor committed hostile environment sexual harassment.
- If the employee proves that she suffered a tangible employment action, the employer is vicariously liable.
- If the employee did not suffer a tangible employment action, the employer may avoid vicarious liability by pleading and proving the two element affirmative defense."
See the full Top 10 list at LexisNexis.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/06/2009 12:01:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Sunday, July 05, 2009 7/05/2009 10:02:00 PM [Home]
Genetic Patent Battle in the Biotech Sector Intensifies : The ABA Law Journal Magazine Features Law and Technology in "Wrangling Genes"
Brendan L. Smith at the ABA Journal online Law News Now in the section on Science & Technology Law has a posting titled Law Trails Behind as Disputes Over Genetic Patents Intensify.
Read his full feature article in the ABA Journal magazine July 2009 issue at Wrangling Genes: As the law changes and new medical frontiers open, the dispute over genetic patents intensifies.
Interesting in this connection is the following observation from Patent Baristas:
In re Kubin : Hitting the NAIL on the Head : Sequencing Poor Federal Circuit Court Decisions out of the Biotechnology Patent Genome via KSR and/or Bilski Reasoning
Federal Circuit affirms In re Kubin and puts sensible limits on Biotechnology Patents pursuant to the KSR obviousness standard, thus negating Deuel (and see the spirited comments and answers thereto at LawPundit II)
Patent Baristas Comments Extensively on In Re Kubin : The Use of Conventional Techniques to Arrive at an Obvious Result Does Not Make an Invention
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/05/2009 10:02:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
Genetic Patent Battle in the Biotech Sector Intensifies : The ABA Law Journal Magazine Features Law and Technology in "Wrangling Genes"
Brendan L. Smith at the ABA Journal online Law News Now in the section on Science & Technology Law has a posting titled Law Trails Behind as Disputes Over Genetic Patents Intensify.
Read his full feature article in the ABA Journal magazine July 2009 issue at Wrangling Genes: As the law changes and new medical frontiers open, the dispute over genetic patents intensifies.
Interesting in this connection is the following observation from Patent Baristas:
"Gene Patent FearmongeringRecall that LawPundit has posted previously and quite definitely about the bad judgement involved in permitting the biotech patenting of human genes:The Slate ran an article about the evils of patent human genes. “Patents are meant to protect inventions, not things that exist in nature like genes in the human body,” quoting Christopher Hansen, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union in regards to their lawsuit to have gene patents declared unconstitutional. The Patent Office estimated that about 52,800 patents have been granted related to genes, fragments of genes, genetic processes and bits of DNA as small as a single letter change in the genetic code."
In re Kubin : Hitting the NAIL on the Head : Sequencing Poor Federal Circuit Court Decisions out of the Biotechnology Patent Genome via KSR and/or Bilski Reasoning
Federal Circuit affirms In re Kubin and puts sensible limits on Biotechnology Patents pursuant to the KSR obviousness standard, thus negating Deuel (and see the spirited comments and answers thereto at LawPundit II)
Patent Baristas Comments Extensively on In Re Kubin : The Use of Conventional Techniques to Arrive at an Obvious Result Does Not Make an Invention
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/05/2009 10:02:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Friday, July 03, 2009 7/03/2009 10:44:00 PM [Home]
Andis Kaulins from the USA in Germany (LawPundit) is no near relation to Andis Kaulins from Canada in Wuxi China or to Andis Kaulins in Talsi Latvia
Most people think because of the rarity of the name Andis Kaulins that there can be only one person on Earth with that name - and this mistaken assumption has already led several times online to very unfortunate cases of mistaken identity and other difficulties.
In fact, there are at least THREE verified Andis Kaulins out there on Planet Earth, and there may be more. The problem is exacerbated since Andis Kaulins is a Latvian origin name and Latvians often do not have middle names, which can make differentiation more difficult.
Andis Kaulins - the LawPundit - grew up in the USA, went to Stanford Law School, was an associate with Paul Weiss et al. in New York City and is now domiciled in Germany, co-authoring an English-German business, commerce and finance dictionary for Langenscheidt and doing freelance legal work, e.g., for the European Commission. Last year this Andis Kaulins won the men's championship at his golf club at age 61. He is also the author of the book Stars Stones and Scholars. That is me - the writer of this LawPundit blog.
There is also a different Andis Kaulins in Wuxi, China who teaches English there and labels his MySpace website Andis Kaulins in China. He hails from Canada and is no near relation of mine, though it is likely that we are somehow related back in distant time, as I presume that the few Kaulins clans in Latvia are related genetically. To my knowledge, I have never met this Andis Kaulins.
There is also an Andis Kaulins with a phone number in Talsi, Latvia, who appears from the little online information available to me to still be a recruit at a police academy. He is no near relation of mine, though it is likely through the surname Kaulins that we are somehow related back in distant time. I have never met this Andis Kaulins.
See my genealogical postings about the surname Kaulins at the Kaulins blog.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/03/2009 10:44:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
Andis Kaulins from the USA in Germany (LawPundit) is no near relation to Andis Kaulins from Canada in Wuxi China or to Andis Kaulins in Talsi Latvia
Most people think because of the rarity of the name Andis Kaulins that there can be only one person on Earth with that name - and this mistaken assumption has already led several times online to very unfortunate cases of mistaken identity and other difficulties.
In fact, there are at least THREE verified Andis Kaulins out there on Planet Earth, and there may be more. The problem is exacerbated since Andis Kaulins is a Latvian origin name and Latvians often do not have middle names, which can make differentiation more difficult.
Andis Kaulins - the LawPundit - grew up in the USA, went to Stanford Law School, was an associate with Paul Weiss et al. in New York City and is now domiciled in Germany, co-authoring an English-German business, commerce and finance dictionary for Langenscheidt and doing freelance legal work, e.g., for the European Commission. Last year this Andis Kaulins won the men's championship at his golf club at age 61. He is also the author of the book Stars Stones and Scholars. That is me - the writer of this LawPundit blog.
There is also a different Andis Kaulins in Wuxi, China who teaches English there and labels his MySpace website Andis Kaulins in China. He hails from Canada and is no near relation of mine, though it is likely that we are somehow related back in distant time, as I presume that the few Kaulins clans in Latvia are related genetically. To my knowledge, I have never met this Andis Kaulins.
There is also an Andis Kaulins with a phone number in Talsi, Latvia, who appears from the little online information available to me to still be a recruit at a police academy. He is no near relation of mine, though it is likely through the surname Kaulins that we are somehow related back in distant time. I have never met this Andis Kaulins.
See my genealogical postings about the surname Kaulins at the Kaulins blog.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/03/2009 10:44:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Thursday, July 02, 2009 7/02/2009 04:57:00 PM [Home]
The Trademarked LawPundit Name has been Stolen at Twitter which is Criminally Abetting Identity Theft : Here is our Complaint to Twitter
The legal community must begin coming down harder on identity theft and the online companies who abet identity theft and make their fortunes by knowingly abetting criminal behaviour, in the instant case, the website Twitter.com.
Let us take a current real-world example involving the trademarked name of our own syndicated blog, LawPundit, whereby someone - not I, the trademark owner - has unlawfully taken the name lawpundit at Twitter. This unknown person who has surely chosen anonymity as a shield against his or her crime, is "following" legal websites, and is thus creating confusion for my own brand, since people think it is I. Here is my complaint to Twitter, sent today:
"This is the second complaint that I am lodging about identity theft at Twitter because the Twitter identity theft that I identified to you previously at http://twitter.com/lawpundit continues unabated.
You are knowingly - and thus criminally - abetting the infringement of my lawpundit trademark, since this is a form of common law fraud in order for you to make money.
LawPundit is a mark in trade, a trade mark, i.e. a trademarked name
specifically so declared online since September, 2003 in the phrase:
"LawPundit™ is a trademark name"
as found on over 1000 LawPundit postings online: see http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/lawpundit.htm.
A search of lawpundit by Google, for example, currently gives 34,000 hits. It is impossible that a good faith Twitter user could not have found that the name lawpundit is trademarked, since that trademark is declared on every website page of LawPundit at more than 1000 postings.
Someone - not I or anyone affiliated with me - has intentionally stolen the name lawpundit for use at Twitter and is following legal sites - thereby creating intentional confusion in the legal community that the "lawpundit" at Twitter is the present writer, which is not true. Anyone receiving a Tweet from this Twitter name might think that it is I. It is identity theft.
This complaint to Twitter is a formal legal request to close down that infringing Twitter account and to transfer the Twitter name lawpundit to me, Andis Kaulins, the rightful trademark owner.
You can see address information about lawpundit.com and me at WhoIs.net - http://www.whois.net/whois/lawpundit.com, where I am listed as the owner of the website, since the year 2003.
"domain: lawpundit.com
created: 27-Sep-2003
last-changed: 17-Sep-2008
registration-expiration: 27-Sep-2009
nserver: ns49.1und1.de
nserver: ns50.1und1.de
status: CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED
registrant-firstname: Andis
registrant-lastname: Kaulins
registrant-organization: Translaton dba Andis Kaulins
registrant-street1: Gartenstr. 10
registrant-pcode: 56841
registrant-city: Traben-Trarbach
registrant-ccode: DE
registrant-phone: +49.6541812188
registrant-fax: +49.65415213
registrant-email: kaulinsandis@msn.com
admin-c-firstname: Andis
admin-c-lastname: Kaulins
admin-c-organization: Translaton dba Andis Kaulins
admin-c-street1: Gartenstr. 10
admin-c-pcode: 56841
admin-c-city: Traben-Trarbach
admin-c-ccode: DE
admin-c-phone: +49.6541812188
admin-c-fax: +49.65415213
admin-c-email: kaulinsandis@msn.com
tech-c-firstname: Hostmaster
tech-c-lastname: EINSUNDEINS
tech-c-organization: 1&1 Internet AG
tech-c-street1: Brauerstr. 48
tech-c-pcode: 76135
tech-c-city: Karlsruhe
tech-c-ccode: DE
tech-c-phone: +49.721913747660
tech-c-fax: +49.72191374246
tech-c-email: hostmaster@1und1.de
bill-c-firstname: Hostmaster
bill-c-lastname: EINSUNDEINS
bill-c-organization: 1&1 Internet AG
bill-c-street1: Brauerstr. 48
bill-c-pcode: 76135
bill-c-city: Karlsruhe
bill-c-ccode: DE
bill-c-phone: +49.721913747660
bill-c-fax: +49.72191374246
bill-c-email: hostmaster@1und1.de"
If this correction is not done promptly, I intend to sue Twitter as an example of a clear case where people are making money by acting wilfully as accomplices to identity theft, and I will see if I can convince local prosecutors to lodge criminal charges against the management and board of directors of Twitter, because once Twitter has been advised of the facts, continued permission of the use by infringer(s) of the name lawpundit in a legal context is an intentional criminal act.
Thank you.
Your sincerely,
Andis Kaulins (owner of the trademark LawPundit)
Gartenstrasse 10
56841 Traben-Trarbach
Germany"
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/02/2009 04:57:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
The Trademarked LawPundit Name has been Stolen at Twitter which is Criminally Abetting Identity Theft : Here is our Complaint to Twitter
The legal community must begin coming down harder on identity theft and the online companies who abet identity theft and make their fortunes by knowingly abetting criminal behaviour, in the instant case, the website Twitter.com.
Let us take a current real-world example involving the trademarked name of our own syndicated blog, LawPundit, whereby someone - not I, the trademark owner - has unlawfully taken the name lawpundit at Twitter. This unknown person who has surely chosen anonymity as a shield against his or her crime, is "following" legal websites, and is thus creating confusion for my own brand, since people think it is I. Here is my complaint to Twitter, sent today:
"This is the second complaint that I am lodging about identity theft at Twitter because the Twitter identity theft that I identified to you previously at http://twitter.com/lawpundit continues unabated.
You are knowingly - and thus criminally - abetting the infringement of my lawpundit trademark, since this is a form of common law fraud in order for you to make money.
LawPundit is a mark in trade, a trade mark, i.e. a trademarked name
specifically so declared online since September, 2003 in the phrase:
"LawPundit™ is a trademark name"
as found on over 1000 LawPundit postings online: see http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/lawpundit.htm.
A search of lawpundit by Google, for example, currently gives 34,000 hits. It is impossible that a good faith Twitter user could not have found that the name lawpundit is trademarked, since that trademark is declared on every website page of LawPundit at more than 1000 postings.
Someone - not I or anyone affiliated with me - has intentionally stolen the name lawpundit for use at Twitter and is following legal sites - thereby creating intentional confusion in the legal community that the "lawpundit" at Twitter is the present writer, which is not true. Anyone receiving a Tweet from this Twitter name might think that it is I. It is identity theft.
This complaint to Twitter is a formal legal request to close down that infringing Twitter account and to transfer the Twitter name lawpundit to me, Andis Kaulins, the rightful trademark owner.
You can see address information about lawpundit.com and me at WhoIs.net - http://www.whois.net/whois/lawpundit.com, where I am listed as the owner of the website, since the year 2003.
"domain: lawpundit.com
created: 27-Sep-2003
last-changed: 17-Sep-2008
registration-expiration: 27-Sep-2009
nserver: ns49.1und1.de
nserver: ns50.1und1.de
status: CLIENT-TRANSFER-PROHIBITED
registrant-firstname: Andis
registrant-lastname: Kaulins
registrant-organization: Translaton dba Andis Kaulins
registrant-street1: Gartenstr. 10
registrant-pcode: 56841
registrant-city: Traben-Trarbach
registrant-ccode: DE
registrant-phone: +49.6541812188
registrant-fax: +49.65415213
registrant-email: kaulinsandis@msn.com
admin-c-firstname: Andis
admin-c-lastname: Kaulins
admin-c-organization: Translaton dba Andis Kaulins
admin-c-street1: Gartenstr. 10
admin-c-pcode: 56841
admin-c-city: Traben-Trarbach
admin-c-ccode: DE
admin-c-phone: +49.6541812188
admin-c-fax: +49.65415213
admin-c-email: kaulinsandis@msn.com
tech-c-firstname: Hostmaster
tech-c-lastname: EINSUNDEINS
tech-c-organization: 1&1 Internet AG
tech-c-street1: Brauerstr. 48
tech-c-pcode: 76135
tech-c-city: Karlsruhe
tech-c-ccode: DE
tech-c-phone: +49.721913747660
tech-c-fax: +49.72191374246
tech-c-email: hostmaster@1und1.de
bill-c-firstname: Hostmaster
bill-c-lastname: EINSUNDEINS
bill-c-organization: 1&1 Internet AG
bill-c-street1: Brauerstr. 48
bill-c-pcode: 76135
bill-c-city: Karlsruhe
bill-c-ccode: DE
bill-c-phone: +49.721913747660
bill-c-fax: +49.72191374246
bill-c-email: hostmaster@1und1.de"
If this correction is not done promptly, I intend to sue Twitter as an example of a clear case where people are making money by acting wilfully as accomplices to identity theft, and I will see if I can convince local prosecutors to lodge criminal charges against the management and board of directors of Twitter, because once Twitter has been advised of the facts, continued permission of the use by infringer(s) of the name lawpundit in a legal context is an intentional criminal act.
Thank you.
Your sincerely,
Andis Kaulins (owner of the trademark LawPundit)
Gartenstrasse 10
56841 Traben-Trarbach
Germany"
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 7/02/2009 04:57:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6/30/2009 08:58:00 PM [Home]
2009 Am Law A-List of Top United States Law Firms Published : Compare to the 2009 Legal 500, the NLJ Survey and Other Rankings
American Lawyer magazine has published its 2009 Am Law A-List, which annually picks the top 20 law firms in the United States out of the Am Law top 200 list based on the factors of Revenue per Lawyer (RPL), Pro Bono Work, Associate Satisfaction and Diversity.
Our alma mater law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, an international law firm headquartered in New York City, just managed to remain in the elite 20, being kept out of the top 10 by a puzzling and extremely low pro bono score relative to the other big law firms.
The A-List was topped for the second straight year by Munger Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, followed by Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Latham & Watkins, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Arnold & Porter, Debevoise & Plimpton, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Morrison & Foerster, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Covington & Burling, Howrey, O'Melveny & Myers, Sullivan & Cromwell, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Kirkland & Ellis, Irell & Manella, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.
Hat tip to Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Online WSJ Law Blog in Munger Tolles Tops AmLaw’s A-List, Once Again.
It is important to emphasize that the Am Law A-List is only one - subjective - way of ranking law firms and that other ranking systems give different results, especially when law firms are ranked according to their skills in selected countries and in circumscribed legal areas.
Take a look, for example, at the 2009 US Legal 500, which analyzes law firms both by country as well as by numerous fields of legal expertise.
Or take a look at America's Best Corporate Law Firms according to the 2009 Corporate Board Member FTI Consulting Survey.
Then there is also the question of the top Growth Leaders and Shrinkers, as determined by the 2008 NLJ 250, The National Law Journal's 31st annual survey of the nation's largest law firms,.
There is also the question of which law firm - "life savers" - people would select when their personal or company fortune is on the line - and there, I dare say - when push comes to shove, a good number of people seem to pick the litigators at Paul, Weiss. As written at partner Martin Flumenbaum's law firm web page:
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/30/2009 08:58:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
2009 Am Law A-List of Top United States Law Firms Published : Compare to the 2009 Legal 500, the NLJ Survey and Other Rankings
American Lawyer magazine has published its 2009 Am Law A-List, which annually picks the top 20 law firms in the United States out of the Am Law top 200 list based on the factors of Revenue per Lawyer (RPL), Pro Bono Work, Associate Satisfaction and Diversity.
Our alma mater law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, an international law firm headquartered in New York City, just managed to remain in the elite 20, being kept out of the top 10 by a puzzling and extremely low pro bono score relative to the other big law firms.
The A-List was topped for the second straight year by Munger Tolles & Olson in Los Angeles, followed by Hughes Hubbard & Reed, Latham & Watkins, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Arnold & Porter, Debevoise & Plimpton, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, Morrison & Foerster, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, Covington & Burling, Howrey, O'Melveny & Myers, Sullivan & Cromwell, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Kirkland & Ellis, Irell & Manella, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.
Hat tip to Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Online WSJ Law Blog in Munger Tolles Tops AmLaw’s A-List, Once Again.
It is important to emphasize that the Am Law A-List is only one - subjective - way of ranking law firms and that other ranking systems give different results, especially when law firms are ranked according to their skills in selected countries and in circumscribed legal areas.
Take a look, for example, at the 2009 US Legal 500, which analyzes law firms both by country as well as by numerous fields of legal expertise.
Or take a look at America's Best Corporate Law Firms according to the 2009 Corporate Board Member FTI Consulting Survey.
Then there is also the question of the top Growth Leaders and Shrinkers, as determined by the 2008 NLJ 250, The National Law Journal's 31st annual survey of the nation's largest law firms,.
There is also the question of which law firm - "life savers" - people would select when their personal or company fortune is on the line - and there, I dare say - when push comes to shove, a good number of people seem to pick the litigators at Paul, Weiss. As written at partner Martin Flumenbaum's law firm web page:
"In January 2006, Mr. Flumenbaum’s representation of Hollinger International and American International Group (AIG) was featured in a cover story in The American Lawyer, “The Life Savers,” in which Paul, Weiss was selected as the best litigation firm in the United States for the period in which Mr. Flumenbaum chaired the department."If my personal or company fortune were on the line, there is no doubt which firm I would select. It would be Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. But then of course, I am strongly biased - for good reason, mind you.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/30/2009 08:58:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Monday, June 29, 2009 6/29/2009 12:04:00 AM [Home]
Google Voice Phone Management System Arrives : Can also be Combined with Google's GOOG 411 to Find and Connect with Local Businesses by Phone for Free
Some readers are no doubt familiar with Google's free Goog 411 "find and connect to a business by phone service" - dial from any phone 1-800-GOOG-411 (1-800-466-4411):
So how about the new Google Voice?
Jeff Bertolucci at PC World in his June 26, 2009 article Hands On With Google Voice -This Is Really Cool reviews "Google's long-awaited Google Voice phone management service that finally became available this week to a lucky few" writing:
Unfortunately, Google Voice is open to use at the moment by invitation only.
Click here to sign up at Google for a Google Voice invite.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/29/2009 12:04:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
Google Voice Phone Management System Arrives : Can also be Combined with Google's GOOG 411 to Find and Connect with Local Businesses by Phone for Free
Some readers are no doubt familiar with Google's free Goog 411 "find and connect to a business by phone service" - dial from any phone 1-800-GOOG-411 (1-800-466-4411):
So how about the new Google Voice?
Jeff Bertolucci at PC World in his June 26, 2009 article Hands On With Google Voice -This Is Really Cool reviews "Google's long-awaited Google Voice phone management service that finally became available this week to a lucky few" writing:
"Google Voice provides a single phone number, such as 415-555-1212, for all your cell, home, and work numbers, and lets you manage your voice services online. Unlike a landline service, a Google Voice number isn't tied to a geographical location. Unlike a cellular service, it's not linked to a specific handset. And unlike a VoIP line, it's not matched with an IP address. Rather, it's tied to you. So if you move, change jobs, or switch wireless carriers, your Google Voice number stays with you. One drawback: you can't port your current number to Google Voice, although that option may be added in the near future, the company says.Read the rest of Bertolucci's review of Google Voice.
This isn't a Skype-type service either. You don't use your computer to make phone calls, and there's no additional software or hardware to install or buy. (You can, however, use the Click2Call feature from the Google Voice website to place calls.) Is it perfect? No, it's got a few quirks, and the myriad of configuration options can be confusing at times. But Google's onto something big here. A service that helps manage the multiple phone lines in our lives should have universal appeal." [emphasis added]
Unfortunately, Google Voice is open to use at the moment by invitation only.
Click here to sign up at Google for a Google Voice invite.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/29/2009 12:04:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Sunday, June 28, 2009 6/28/2009 12:53:00 PM [Home]
USA Environmental Legislation : American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Passes U.S. House of Representatives and Heads to the U.S. Senate
The United States - which is far behind Europe in environmental legislation, and which is learning hard energy lessons in the automotive industry - is moving forward on clean energy, as the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 passed Barack Obama's "Clean Energy Bill", (H.R. 2998, printed June 27, 2009, also known as the "Waxman-Markey Bill", official short title "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009", 1201 pages in the .pdf version) which now goes to the Senate, where, in this author's view, it will still be subject to some amendment, but will surely pass.
As written at WikiNews:
Those in America who oppose sensible legislation on energy and the environment need to be reminded - time and again- that the collapse of the American automotive industry is a direct cause of the stubborn failure by US institutions and citizens to accept the energy realities.
UPDATE:
John M. Broder writes at the New York Times in House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change:
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/28/2009 12:53:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
USA Environmental Legislation : American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 Passes U.S. House of Representatives and Heads to the U.S. Senate
The United States - which is far behind Europe in environmental legislation, and which is learning hard energy lessons in the automotive industry - is moving forward on clean energy, as the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 passed Barack Obama's "Clean Energy Bill", (H.R. 2998, printed June 27, 2009, also known as the "Waxman-Markey Bill", official short title "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009", 1201 pages in the .pdf version) which now goes to the Senate, where, in this author's view, it will still be subject to some amendment, but will surely pass.
As written at WikiNews:
"The final vote was 219-212, with only 8 Republicans voting for the legislation, and 44 Democrats voting against it. The resolution addresses the "greenhouse effect," and calls for a 17% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and an 83% reduction by 2050. In addition, the legislation will establish new requirements for utilities, and various incentives for "going green.""The Wikipedia writes:
"The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) is an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress that would establish a variant of a cap-and-trade plan for greenhouse gases to address climate change. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009 by a vote of 219-212, but has not yet been approved by the Senate.[1][2]Proponents and opponents of the bill tend to concentrate on the specific provisions of the bill, whereas the most important impact of the bill - if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by President Obama - will be its clear message to American corporations and inhabitants that they have to start to think and act realistically with respect to energy and the environment, as has been the case in the European Union already for a great number of years.This vote was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change.....[3]
Internationally, the House's passage of the ACES bill "established a marker for the United States when international negotiations on a new climate change treaty begin later this year."[4]
Those in America who oppose sensible legislation on energy and the environment need to be reminded - time and again- that the collapse of the American automotive industry is a direct cause of the stubborn failure by US institutions and citizens to accept the energy realities.
UPDATE:
John M. Broder writes at the New York Times in House Passes Bill to Address Threat of Climate Change:
"The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who was in Washington on Friday to meet with Mr. Obama, strongly endorsed the bill even though it fell short of European goals for reducing the emissions of heat-trapping gases.Mrs. Merkel, a longtime advocate of strong curbs on emissions, has been pushing the United States to take a leading role before the climate negotiations, set for December in Copenhagen."
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/28/2009 12:53:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT 6/28/2009 11:44:00 AM [Home]
Cybercrime and Cybersecurity : Cyberspace and Cyberwar : Russia for International Treaty : USA for Law Enforcement Cooperation : European Convention
Arms control for cyberspace?
In a "futuristic" June 27, 2009 article at the New York Times titled U.S. and Russia Differ on a Treaty for Cyberspace, John Markoff and Andrew E. Kramer point to the growing threat of cyberwar:
"Officials around the world recognize the need to deal with the growing threat of cyberwar. Many countries, including the United States, are developing weapons for it, like “logic bombs” that can be hidden in computers to halt them at crucial times or damage circuitry; “botnets” that can disable or spy on Web sites and networks; or microwave radiation devices that can burn out computer circuits miles away."
Markoff and Kramer write that the United States and Russia have differing views on achieving cybersecurity:
"The United States is trying to improve cybersecurity by building relationships among international law enforcement agencies. State Department officials hold out as a model the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, which took effect in 2004 and has been signed by 22 nations, including the United States but not Russia or China.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/28/2009 11:44:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
Cybercrime and Cybersecurity : Cyberspace and Cyberwar : Russia for International Treaty : USA for Law Enforcement Cooperation : European Convention
Arms control for cyberspace?
In a "futuristic" June 27, 2009 article at the New York Times titled U.S. and Russia Differ on a Treaty for Cyberspace, John Markoff and Andrew E. Kramer point to the growing threat of cyberwar:
"Officials around the world recognize the need to deal with the growing threat of cyberwar. Many countries, including the United States, are developing weapons for it, like “logic bombs” that can be hidden in computers to halt them at crucial times or damage circuitry; “botnets” that can disable or spy on Web sites and networks; or microwave radiation devices that can burn out computer circuits miles away."
Markoff and Kramer write that the United States and Russia have differing views on achieving cybersecurity:
"The United States is trying to improve cybersecurity by building relationships among international law enforcement agencies. State Department officials hold out as a model the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, which took effect in 2004 and has been signed by 22 nations, including the United States but not Russia or China.
But Russia objects that the European convention on cybercrime allows the police to open an investigation of suspected online crime originating in another country without first informing local authorities, infringing on traditional ideas of sovereignty. Vladimir V. Sokolov, deputy director of the Institute for Information Security Issues, a policy organization, noted that Russian authorities routinely cooperated with foreign police organizations when they were approached."
Read the entire article.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/28/2009 11:44:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Wednesday, June 24, 2009 6/24/2009 10:53:00 AM [Home]
European Commission Puts Economies of Struggling Britain and Ireland in the Same Category as Latvia : German Economy may be on the Upswing
We remain worried about the national finances of Latvia and see the threat of devaluation as a strong concern, but now breathe a sigh of relief to see that the Latvian government is in good company.
(See Financial Times Alphaville and Latvia Economy Watch on the economic situation in Latvia).
The June 24, 2009 headline from Gary Duncan at The Times Online reads European Commission Puts Economies of Struggling Britain and Ireland in the Same Category as Latvia, as the governments of Britain and the Irish Republic are facing similar economic problems caused by overspending, the impact of the credit crisis and the extent of the current world recession.
The long-term proposed solution to the world's financial problems - and also the major bone of contention in Europe - is increased regulation of the financial industry. We agree that more regulation is necessary and indeed inescapable.
Hans-Jürgen Schlamp at Spiegel Online International writes that Europe is split over the financial crisis and that the United Kingdom and Ireland are resisting the push from continental European countries for more regulation of the financial sector:
"London and Dublin, in particular, are blocking anything that could create problems in their respective financial industries. This is understandable, given the fact that Great Britain and Ireland have very few other future-proof industrial sectors. But this path is immensely dangerous for Europe.
We need merely to read (via the Edward.Hugh.Blog) an older (2007) International Monetary Fund (IMF) statement on the Latvian economy - as a representative example - to see that the present problems have been a longer time in the making:
"Statement by IMF Mission to Latvia on 2007 Article IV Consultation Discussions
Press Release No. 07/87, May 4, 2007
The following statement was issued on April 27 in Riga by Ms. Rachel van Elkan, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission chief for Latvia:
"The IMF mission visited Riga during April 17-27 to hold the 2007 Article IV consultation discussions on economic prospects and policies....
Latvia, like other recent EU entrants, has benefited from an accession-related boost to income convergence. Closer integration with the rest of Europe in goods, financial, and labor markets, as well as through access to substantial EU grants, has helped create favorable investment opportunities and attract large inflows of foreign financing. Consequently, capital and technology stocks and consumption and living standards have risen. Employment opportunities—in Latvia and abroad—have allowed citizens to acquire new skills and work experience. As a result, Latvia has enjoyed very rapid convergence in income levels over the past decade.
Recently, however, fast credit and wage growth has caused the economy to diverge from a balanced and sustainable growth path, with domestic demand outstripping Latvia's supply capacity. As a result, overheating has intensified, bringing higher price and wage inflation, a sharply wider current account deficit, and greater external indebtedness. Rapid credit growth in euros has left large currency mismatches on the balance sheets of households and corporates and a boom in housing prices that has diverted resources from the tradable sector. A pervasive "buy now-pay later" mindset has settled in and is heightening systemic risk. These developments, if not tackled firmly, will thwart a recovery of export growth.
There is an urgent need for decisive action to unwind overheating pressures and narrow external imbalances by sharply curtailing domestic demand. Notwithstanding actions by the Bank of Latvia to raise risk awareness, recent pressure on the lats [the Latvian currency] signals growing investor impatience with the limited policy response so far. A comprehensive strategy is therefore needed to curb domestic spending and wage growth, and moderate real estate prices to rebalance incentives for investing in tradables sectors....
The authorities' recent anti-inflation plan is a significant first step, and signals their recognition of the severity of macroeconomic conditions. In our view, however, the high level of imbalances and vulnerabilities warrants more decisive and comprehensive action. We therefore urge the Government, FCMC, and the Bank of Latvia to demonstrate unwavering commitment to a policy that would generate an appreciable near-term adjustment in the current account. A substantial front-loaded fiscal adjustment is essential to begin to counter demand buoyancy while helping convince the private sector of the government's willingness to shoulder its share of the burden. A strong communication strategy is also needed to signal the need for credit and wage restraint by the private sector. The mission's main recommendations are detailed below.
Fiscal policy: Against the balanced budget targeted in the anti-inflation plan, we consider that a headline general government surplus of 2¼ percent of GDP in 2007 and 4 percent of GDP in 2008 is appropriate. This could be achieved by saving in full revenue overperformance, restraining current and capital expenditures, and abstaining from cuts in taxes, including the personal income tax. Introducing medium-term budgeting, anchored within a conservative revenue envelope, can help balance the need for expenditure restraint with improvements in public sector efficiency. To enhance fiscal transparency and sustainability, all large public investment projects should be evaluated and prioritized within a single unified framework
Credit and prudential policies: Sharply curtailing and improving the risk profile of new lending is essential to mitigating macroeconomic and financial stability risks. Rebalancing incentives governing credit growth is therefore essential. The mission supports the effective implementation of the credit-restraining measures in the anti-inflation plan, including fully documenting legal income to secure a loan, establishing a comprehensive register of all loans, and requiring a 10 percent minimum downpayment. We also welcome the recent reimposition of limits on banks' open positions in euros. Additional regulatory measures are also needed to slow credit growth and induce banks to internalize systemic risk in real estate and currency markets. The FCMC, working with the Bank of Latvia, should increase its emphasis on monitoring systemic risk through more frequent on-site inspections of large banks and ensuring that foreign banks tailor their credit-risk models to the Latvian context.
Real estate policies: Rebalancing the structure of the economy away from the nontradables sector, especially real estate, is essential to underpin needed current account adjustment. The mission welcomes the increase in real estate taxation envisaged in the anti-inflation plan, as well as the periodic reassessment of cadastral values, beginning in 2007. To be effective, however, enforcement of real-estate related taxation should be stepped up. To further relieve overheating in the construction sector, it will be necessary to significantly scale back government capital expenditure (planned at 5 percent of GDP for 2007).
Labor market policies: Efficient labor utilization is critical to expand aggregate supply and contain surging wage costs, which are contributing to overheating and undermining Latvia's competitiveness. The greater flexibility allowed in the use of fixed-term employment contracts introduced in the 2006 Amendment to the Labor Law is welcome, and further steps to facilitate mobility between jobs and regions are needed. The recent decision to allow unfettered labor market access to the newest EU members may help relieve bottlenecks, and wider temporary access should also be considered. Public sector wage agreements should not provide grounds—through demonstration effects—for increases in private wages in excess of productivity. Social partners should secure a broad consensus for appropriate wage restraint. Shifting to higher value-added products requires increasing employer involvement in setting education curricula, and prioritizing EU structural funds to developing human resources, entrepreneurship, and innovation in traditional and new export sectors."
IMF EXTERNAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
Public Affairs Media Relations
Phone: 202-623-7300 Phone: 202-623-7100
Fax: 202-623-6278 Fax: 202-623-6772"
By contrast, as written at Spiegel Online International, the German economy may be on the road to recovery, and as Germany goes, so - in the long term - goes Europe. But, as written in that article, there are no grounds for euphoria. National governments must get their finances in order, and that will take some time.
Hat tip to CaryGEE.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/24/2009 10:53:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
European Commission Puts Economies of Struggling Britain and Ireland in the Same Category as Latvia : German Economy may be on the Upswing
We remain worried about the national finances of Latvia and see the threat of devaluation as a strong concern, but now breathe a sigh of relief to see that the Latvian government is in good company.
(See Financial Times Alphaville and Latvia Economy Watch on the economic situation in Latvia).
The June 24, 2009 headline from Gary Duncan at The Times Online reads European Commission Puts Economies of Struggling Britain and Ireland in the Same Category as Latvia, as the governments of Britain and the Irish Republic are facing similar economic problems caused by overspending, the impact of the credit crisis and the extent of the current world recession.
The long-term proposed solution to the world's financial problems - and also the major bone of contention in Europe - is increased regulation of the financial industry. We agree that more regulation is necessary and indeed inescapable.
Hans-Jürgen Schlamp at Spiegel Online International writes that Europe is split over the financial crisis and that the United Kingdom and Ireland are resisting the push from continental European countries for more regulation of the financial sector:
"London and Dublin, in particular, are blocking anything that could create problems in their respective financial industries. This is understandable, given the fact that Great Britain and Ireland have very few other future-proof industrial sectors. But this path is immensely dangerous for Europe.
"We have absolutely no risk management today," says David Wright, deputy director general of the European Commission. According to Wright, there were no warning signals before the financial meltdown because "the necessary mechanisms simply do not exist." Wright believes that it is high time for change."
In fact, the UK and Ireland are in much same boat as Latvia and will have no choice but to adopt sounder and more restrictive financial policies in the future.We need merely to read (via the Edward.Hugh.Blog) an older (2007) International Monetary Fund (IMF) statement on the Latvian economy - as a representative example - to see that the present problems have been a longer time in the making:
"Statement by IMF Mission to Latvia on 2007 Article IV Consultation Discussions
Press Release No. 07/87, May 4, 2007
The following statement was issued on April 27 in Riga by Ms. Rachel van Elkan, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) mission chief for Latvia:
"The IMF mission visited Riga during April 17-27 to hold the 2007 Article IV consultation discussions on economic prospects and policies....
Latvia, like other recent EU entrants, has benefited from an accession-related boost to income convergence. Closer integration with the rest of Europe in goods, financial, and labor markets, as well as through access to substantial EU grants, has helped create favorable investment opportunities and attract large inflows of foreign financing. Consequently, capital and technology stocks and consumption and living standards have risen. Employment opportunities—in Latvia and abroad—have allowed citizens to acquire new skills and work experience. As a result, Latvia has enjoyed very rapid convergence in income levels over the past decade.
Recently, however, fast credit and wage growth has caused the economy to diverge from a balanced and sustainable growth path, with domestic demand outstripping Latvia's supply capacity. As a result, overheating has intensified, bringing higher price and wage inflation, a sharply wider current account deficit, and greater external indebtedness. Rapid credit growth in euros has left large currency mismatches on the balance sheets of households and corporates and a boom in housing prices that has diverted resources from the tradable sector. A pervasive "buy now-pay later" mindset has settled in and is heightening systemic risk. These developments, if not tackled firmly, will thwart a recovery of export growth.
There is an urgent need for decisive action to unwind overheating pressures and narrow external imbalances by sharply curtailing domestic demand. Notwithstanding actions by the Bank of Latvia to raise risk awareness, recent pressure on the lats [the Latvian currency] signals growing investor impatience with the limited policy response so far. A comprehensive strategy is therefore needed to curb domestic spending and wage growth, and moderate real estate prices to rebalance incentives for investing in tradables sectors....
The authorities' recent anti-inflation plan is a significant first step, and signals their recognition of the severity of macroeconomic conditions. In our view, however, the high level of imbalances and vulnerabilities warrants more decisive and comprehensive action. We therefore urge the Government, FCMC, and the Bank of Latvia to demonstrate unwavering commitment to a policy that would generate an appreciable near-term adjustment in the current account. A substantial front-loaded fiscal adjustment is essential to begin to counter demand buoyancy while helping convince the private sector of the government's willingness to shoulder its share of the burden. A strong communication strategy is also needed to signal the need for credit and wage restraint by the private sector. The mission's main recommendations are detailed below.
Fiscal policy: Against the balanced budget targeted in the anti-inflation plan, we consider that a headline general government surplus of 2¼ percent of GDP in 2007 and 4 percent of GDP in 2008 is appropriate. This could be achieved by saving in full revenue overperformance, restraining current and capital expenditures, and abstaining from cuts in taxes, including the personal income tax. Introducing medium-term budgeting, anchored within a conservative revenue envelope, can help balance the need for expenditure restraint with improvements in public sector efficiency. To enhance fiscal transparency and sustainability, all large public investment projects should be evaluated and prioritized within a single unified framework
Credit and prudential policies: Sharply curtailing and improving the risk profile of new lending is essential to mitigating macroeconomic and financial stability risks. Rebalancing incentives governing credit growth is therefore essential. The mission supports the effective implementation of the credit-restraining measures in the anti-inflation plan, including fully documenting legal income to secure a loan, establishing a comprehensive register of all loans, and requiring a 10 percent minimum downpayment. We also welcome the recent reimposition of limits on banks' open positions in euros. Additional regulatory measures are also needed to slow credit growth and induce banks to internalize systemic risk in real estate and currency markets. The FCMC, working with the Bank of Latvia, should increase its emphasis on monitoring systemic risk through more frequent on-site inspections of large banks and ensuring that foreign banks tailor their credit-risk models to the Latvian context.
Real estate policies: Rebalancing the structure of the economy away from the nontradables sector, especially real estate, is essential to underpin needed current account adjustment. The mission welcomes the increase in real estate taxation envisaged in the anti-inflation plan, as well as the periodic reassessment of cadastral values, beginning in 2007. To be effective, however, enforcement of real-estate related taxation should be stepped up. To further relieve overheating in the construction sector, it will be necessary to significantly scale back government capital expenditure (planned at 5 percent of GDP for 2007).
Labor market policies: Efficient labor utilization is critical to expand aggregate supply and contain surging wage costs, which are contributing to overheating and undermining Latvia's competitiveness. The greater flexibility allowed in the use of fixed-term employment contracts introduced in the 2006 Amendment to the Labor Law is welcome, and further steps to facilitate mobility between jobs and regions are needed. The recent decision to allow unfettered labor market access to the newest EU members may help relieve bottlenecks, and wider temporary access should also be considered. Public sector wage agreements should not provide grounds—through demonstration effects—for increases in private wages in excess of productivity. Social partners should secure a broad consensus for appropriate wage restraint. Shifting to higher value-added products requires increasing employer involvement in setting education curricula, and prioritizing EU structural funds to developing human resources, entrepreneurship, and innovation in traditional and new export sectors."
IMF EXTERNAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT
Public Affairs Media Relations
Phone: 202-623-7300 Phone: 202-623-7100
Fax: 202-623-6278 Fax: 202-623-6772"
By contrast, as written at Spiegel Online International, the German economy may be on the road to recovery, and as Germany goes, so - in the long term - goes Europe. But, as written in that article, there are no grounds for euphoria. National governments must get their finances in order, and that will take some time.
Hat tip to CaryGEE.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/24/2009 10:53:00 AM
: : bookmark/share
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6/23/2009 09:59:00 PM [Home]
The Witness Problem : Human Memory is Fallible and Vulnerable : Which Sense Organ Gives the Most Reliable Testimony? The Eye or the Ear?
Human memory is fallible and vulnerable, which has special consequences for the law.
The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies has a review by Laura Engelhardt of The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony, a talk by Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology and George Fisher, Professor of Law, writing:
If our brain is faced with a conflict of senses in which sight gives us one answer and hearing gives us another answer, which sense prevails - audio or visual?
Natalie Angier at the New York Times Science Basics in her article, When an Ear Witness Decides the Case, informs us of a new aspect to human fallibility - sensory conflict:
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/23/2009 09:59:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
The Witness Problem : Human Memory is Fallible and Vulnerable : Which Sense Organ Gives the Most Reliable Testimony? The Eye or the Ear?
Human memory is fallible and vulnerable, which has special consequences for the law.
The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies has a review by Laura Engelhardt of The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony, a talk by Barbara Tversky, Professor of Psychology and George Fisher, Professor of Law, writing:
"In a presentation sponsored by the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies, George Fisher placed Barbara Tversky’s research on memory fallibility into the context of police investigations and jury verdicts, discussing the relevance of such research to our system of justice...."and concluding:
"The courts’ reliance on witnesses is built into the common-law judicial system, a reliance that is placed in check by the opposing counsel’s right to cross-examination—an important component of the adversarial legal process—and the law’s trust of the jury’s common sense. The fixation on witnesses reflects the weight given to personal testimony. As shown by recent studies, this weight must be balanced by an awareness that it is not necessary for a witness to lie or be coaxed by prosecutorial error to inaccurately state the facts—the mere fault of being human results in distorted memory and inaccurate testimony."The familiar problems summarized in the Engelhardt review are exacerbated by new studies relating to the fallibility and vulnerability of the brain when forced to choose between conflicting senses.
If our brain is faced with a conflict of senses in which sight gives us one answer and hearing gives us another answer, which sense prevails - audio or visual?
Natalie Angier at the New York Times Science Basics in her article, When an Ear Witness Decides the Case, informs us of a new aspect to human fallibility - sensory conflict:
"Spoken clearly, the sounds “dah” and “bah” are easy to distinguish. Yet if you play a film clip in which the soundtrack says “dah” while the image on the screen shows a mouth saying “bah,” people will swear they heard “bah.”Such and similar evidentiary problems in the law can lead to wrongful convictions.
If you ask people to count the number of times that a light flashes, and you flash the light seven times together with a sequence of eight beeping tones, people will say the light flashed eight times.
When confronted with conflicting pieces of information, the brain decides which sense to trust. In the first scenario, those clearly percussing lips could never be articulating a “d,” and so vision claimed the upper hand. But on matters that demand a temporal analysis, and making sense of similar sounds in a sequence, the brain reflexively counts on hearing."
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 6/23/2009 09:59:00 PM
: : bookmark/share
......Creative Commons License