Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202634048159?rss=rss_nlj
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
SMU's Next Law Dean Has Administrative Background
Southern Methodist University has named Wake Forest University Vice Provost Jennifer Collins as the next dean of its Dedman School of Law. Collins, who has also taught law at Wake Forest since 2003, will assume the SMU deanship in July.
Myanmar journalists sentenced for alleged national security violations
[JURIST] A provincial court in Myanmar [BBC backgrounder] on Thursday sentenced four journalists and the chief executive from the Unity Journal [media website, in Burmese] to a 10-year prison sentence and hard labor for publishing a story in January in violation of the national State Secrets Act, a British colonial law dating back to the 1920s. The report alleged the Myanmar military had seized a sizable amount of land in the central Magwe region of the county for the purpose...
legal help legal information legal news legal services lemon law
Ride-Sharing Lyft Faces Off Against New York Attorney General
An effort by New York authorities to stop ride-sharing app Lyft Inc. from operating in the state is the latest eruption of tensions between local regulators and so-called "sharing economy" businesses.
Canada appeals court rules Khadr must be transferred from federal prison
[JURIST] The Alberta Court of Appeals [official website] ruled [text] Tuesday in favor of former Guantanamo Bay inmate Omar Khadr [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], ordering that he be transferred from a federal penitentiary to a provincial correctional facility. Khadr, a Canadian citizen now age 27, was captured by US forces after being found fighting in Afghanistan in 2002 at the age of 15. He spent eight years in Guantanamo before being convicted on five charges and sentenced to eight...
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
No district court jurisdiction for federal employee challenging adverse employment action (6-3)
The US Supreme Court held this morning that the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) precludes district court jurisdiction over Elgin's claim that his removal from federal service was based on an unconstitutional statute. The procedural route prescribed by the CSRA is by appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and, if dissatisfied with the result, appeal to the Federal Circuit, whose decisions in turn are reviewable by the Supreme Court.
Elgin v. Dept of Treasury (US Supreme Ct 06/11/2012)
A federal statute bars employment in the executive branch of male citizens who failed to register for the draft. Elgin, who had been discharged from his job, first challenged the decision before the MSPB - arguing that the statutory bar was unconstitutional - but an ALJ dismissed his case on the ground that the MSPB lacked authority to review the constitutionality of a federal statute. Rather than appealing from that decision, Elgin sued in federal district court.
The US Supreme Court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction because it is "fairly discernable" from the CSRA's text, structure, and purpose that Congress precluded district court jurisdiction over Elgin's claims. Based on CSRA's text and structure, there is no exception for constitutional challenges to federal statutes. If the MSPB lacks power to hear such claims, they can be meaningfully addressed by the Federal Circuit.
The DISSENT argued that Elgin's "constitutional claims are a far cry from the type of claim that Congress intended to channel through the [MSPB]."
Source: http://www.lawmemo.com/blog/2012/06/no_district_cou.html
Eric Turkewitz on Legal Blogging
Eric Turkewitz, of The Turkewitz Law Firm and author of the New York Personal Injury Law Blog, offers dos and don'ts for first-time legal bloggers.
Dewey Leaders Seek Dismissal of Criminal Charges
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/07/15/dewey-leaders-seek-dismissal-of-criminal-charges/?mod=WSJBlog
UN rights chief deeply concerned over arrests of Saudi Arabia activists
[JURIST] UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navy Pillay [official profile] on Thursday expressed deep concern [press release] over the harsh sentences and detention of peaceful human rights advocates in Saudi Arabia in recent months. In particular, Pillay expressed concern over the sentence imposed upon Saudi human rights activist and lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair [AI report], who is the founder and chief of the human rights group Saudi Arabia Monitor of Human Rights. Abu al-Khair was taken into custody [JURIST...
The Butcher, The Baker and FISA
The House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing today on FISA, the NSA and some guy named Snowden. Few people are aware of this, as their time and attention are consumed by more important legal concerns, as regularly voice by legal entertainer, Nancy Grace. But it will happen nonetheless.
Stewart Baker, who harbors some peculiar notions when it comes to the things the government does to keep us safe, will be testifying, and he has much to say about each of these subjects, and then some. While his testimony of extraordinary breadth is all worth reading in a morbid fascination sort of way, it spans far more than can be discussed here. Rather than try to overreach, let's take a look-see at just one small piece of his puzzle.
© 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.
Stewart Baker, who harbors some peculiar notions when it comes to the things the government does to keep us safe, will be testifying, and he has much to say about each of these subjects, and then some. While his testimony of extraordinary breadth is all worth reading in a morbid fascination sort of way, it spans far more than can be discussed here. Rather than try to overreach, let's take a look-see at just one small piece of his puzzle.
To be blunt, one of the reasons I’m here is that I fear we may repeat some of the mistakes we made as a country in the years before September 11, 2001. In those years, a Democratic President serving his second term seemed to inspire deepening suspicion of government and a rebirth of enthusiasm for civil liberties not just on the left but also on the right. The Cato Institute criticized the Clinton Administration’s support of warrantless national security searches and expanded government wiretap authority as “dereliction of duty,” saying,“[i]f constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, Bill Clinton would certainly receive an F–an appalling grade for any president–let alone a former professor of constitutional law.” The criticism rubbed off on the FISA court, whose chief judge felt obliged to give public interviews and speeches defending against the claim that the court was rubber-stamping the Clinton administration’s intercept requests.
This is where I should insert a joke about the movie “Groundhog Day.” But I don’t feel like joking, because I know how this movie ends.
Gratuitous slams at Democrats aside, given that a two-term Republican in the middle didn't do any better, can you guess where Baker is heading?
Rarely does a paragraph so grossly distort cause and effect, correlation and causation, while at the same time trivializing and blaming those darned "civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle." Maybe not Jefferson and Madison, but their elected descendants who, at least in Baker's mind, put us at risk for terrorism by the horrors of defending civil liberties, those things that make us who and what we are. And so, when a law enforcement task force of the FBI found out in August of 2001 that al Qaeda had sent two dangerous operatives to the United States, it did … nothing. It was told to stand down; it could not go looking for the two al Qaeda operatives because it was on the wrong side of the wall. I believe that FBI task force would have found the hijackers – who weren’t hiding – and that the attacks could have been stopped if not for a combination of bad judgment by the FISA court (whose minimization rules were later thrown out on appeal) and a climate in which national security concerns were discounted by civil liberties advocates on both sides of the aisle.
This is like a trick for fools, which makes it perfect for congressional testimony. As if the FBI having been on the wrong side of the "wall" before 9/11 was the cause of America's failure to stop the attacks. Because the FBI so effectively stopped others, say, Tsarnaev, when they had no wall to blame it on? Or that there was no other law enforcement apparatus in existence for the FBI to do its job, except to engage in a national secret colonoscopy but be forbidden from telling the patient the results.
There has never been any dispute that law enforcement would be both easier and more effective if we would just let them ignore all those nasty constitutional rights that the citizenry preserved for itself when deciding to let a government exist. Think about how much safer we would be if police could just enter our homes at will and search for whatever they want, or just for fun. You never know what they might stumble on.
That's what Baker considers the right way to go, because he believes that government can be trusted, that government is well-intended and would rarely abuse the vast power he would give it. Not that it would never abuse the power, but in those very rare instances where something went beyond his vision of propriety, government would also be fully capable of policing itself. Ronald Reagan, for all his faults, was elected on the platform that government was the problem. Baker disagrees.
I realize that this story is not widely told, perhaps because it’s not an especially welcome story, not in the mainstream media and not on the Internet. But it is true; the parts of my book that describe it are well-grounded in recently declassified government reports. More importantly, I lived it. And I never want to live through that particular Groundhog Day again. That’s why I’m here. The argument is reminiscent of the mother whose child was tragically killed, and goes before a legislative body to ask that no other child ever again be harmed. There is enormous sympathy for her loss, but whatever killed the child happens a million times without incident, and then once with a terrible outcome. What she is asking is that the million times be eliminated so that the one time never happen. It's understandable, as she speaks from personal grief, but it's an unsound basis to craft law. Baker plays the same cards.
Notice how he ties it to himself personally, as he was there in government service when the government failed to stop a tragic event. Of course, it wasn't the government's fault that it failed, but those "civil liberties advocates" who tied the government's hands from saving us. That's the claim, even though it relies on a logical fallacy that Baker, a smart guy, hopes no one on the committee will see.
Had there been no wall, and the FBI free to break into bedrooms and telephone calls at will, there is no correlation between their putative claim that they would have been able to stop 9/11. There is no basis to claim they would have done anything more than interrogate the two suspected terrorists and let them go. There is no basis to claim that the other terrorists, even if the two were held or expelled, wouldn't have flown planes into buildings. There is no line to be drawn from point A to point Z.
But Stewart Baker will be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today and will tell them these things. And I won't. And you won't. And the wheels of government will grind on.
© 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/2013/07/17/the-butcher-the-baker-and-fisa.aspx?ref=rss
real estate lawyer solicitor solicitors statute law statutory law
Not The Most Enlightened Sex Education Program
The source for today’s Juice? A Change.org petition that came The Juice’s way. No doubt this law will end homosexuality in Alabama… Clearly a class adhering to the requirements of this law cannot be called sex “education.” The law is Section 16-40A-2 of the Alabama Code:
MINIMUM CONTENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN SEX EDUCATION PROGRAM OR CURRICULUM
… (c) Course materials and instruction that relate to sexual education or sexually transmitted diseases should include all of the following elements:
… (8) An emphasis, in a factual manner and from a public health perspective, that homosexuality is not a lifestyle acceptable to the general public and that homosexual conduct is a criminal offense under the laws of the state.
This is just stupid and wrong on so many levels. Who is this “general public” referring to? Not the American public. And “homosexual conduct is a criminal offense”? Sure, some of it is (sodomy). But what about two men holding hands? You can read the full text of this small-minded, bigoted law here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/Ft6jrcrMH2w/asdf-32.html
divorce attorney divorce lawers divorce lawyer divorce lawyers download power of attorney
Monday, July 14, 2014
Class Spiked in Litigation Over ?100 Percent Natural? Oil
A federal judge on Monday tentatively denied certification of a consumer class action alleging that the "100 Percent Natural" labels on Wesson cooking oils are misleading because the products contain seeds from genetically modified plants.
Atheist to Deliver Opening for Town in Public Prayer Dispute
After winning a U.S. Supreme Court battle to allow religious invocations at monthly board meetings, the town of Greece, N.Y., will open its session July 15 with a greeting by an atheist.
immigration attorney immigration law immigration lawyer immigration lawyers injury attorney
How Bad Ideas Grow Legs
Last January, Instapundit lawprof Glenn Reynolds wrote a short essay that became the darling of many folks who take an interest in criminal justice issues entitled Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything is a Crime. To be kind, it was a simplistic rehash of long-time, discredited silver-bullet solutions to complex problems. The only virtue was that it came from Reynolds, who was a law professor and thus credible by definition even though he was dabbling at the edges of an area of law about which he knew nothing.
It was excoriated here. Gideon beat it up at A Public Defender as well. Unlike Reynolds, this wasn't a theoretical exercise for us. We lived with the problems, and would wind up living with whatever inane solution seemed like a cool idea to an academic. Whereas Reynolds' mantle of scholarly credibility was an asset for others whose interest came from a distance, ours was nuts and bolts, from living with the detritus of bad ideas in the trenches.
Radley Balko took us to task for being critical of Reynolds. The Agitator offered a homily of cooperation, arguing that we ought to work with luminaries like Reynolds rather than saying mean things like their ideas aren't fabulous. After explaining what was horribly wrong with a particular idea promoted by Reynolds that Radley found especially interesting (loser pays in criminal litigation), I wrote:
Of course, I was shunning and mocking, just as Radley said. But then, I had no plan to suck up to Reynolds in an effort to gain him as an ally anymore than I planned to teach a pig to sing. As players in punditry go, Reynolds is a major player,* and he enjoys his importance. He doesn't swim with minnows like Gid and me. At most, he eats us for a snack. Radley may have been well-intended, but didn't really appreciate the pecking order.
Of course, there was nothing to stop Reynolds, either before or after he published his Ham Sandwich essay, from speaking with people who were actually knowledgeable about criminal law, whether that was Gid and/or me, or some other trench lawyers, who could explain why good ideas on paper don't play as well in the courtroom. But no. He didn't. Since it was his essay being published to enlighten the world, it was his duty to get a clue, and his choice not to.
My point to Radley at the time was the when loud voices with ascribed credibility write something like this, bad things happen. Bad ideas are taken more seriously. Other people will mistakenly assume that Reynolds, lawprof and all, has a clue what he's talking about and his ideas must have merit. After all, lawprofs could never be wrong about lawstuff. And now that Reynolds had rung the bell, it could not be unrung.
George Will, certainly one of this country's leading conservative intellectuals, heard the peal of Reynolds' bell this week. In an otherwise excellent column on Senators Leahy and Rand's efforts to provide a backdoor to mandatory minimums (which raises the question of why they aren't seeking to end mandatory minimums through the front door, but we'll take it anyway they offer it), Will goes from the sublime to the ridiculous:
Yet, I look forward to some fine senators extolling the virtue of a dangerous and hare-brained reform of the law, citing to Glenn Reynolds' Ham Sandwich essays as the font of practical criminal law brilliance. Because the myth has now been created and George Will gave it legs.
And this is how we end up with monumentally bad ideas being enshrined in law.
* For those who aren't familiar with Instapundit, this from Reynolds' Wikipedia page:
© 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.
It was excoriated here. Gideon beat it up at A Public Defender as well. Unlike Reynolds, this wasn't a theoretical exercise for us. We lived with the problems, and would wind up living with whatever inane solution seemed like a cool idea to an academic. Whereas Reynolds' mantle of scholarly credibility was an asset for others whose interest came from a distance, ours was nuts and bolts, from living with the detritus of bad ideas in the trenches.
Radley Balko took us to task for being critical of Reynolds. The Agitator offered a homily of cooperation, arguing that we ought to work with luminaries like Reynolds rather than saying mean things like their ideas aren't fabulous. After explaining what was horribly wrong with a particular idea promoted by Reynolds that Radley found especially interesting (loser pays in criminal litigation), I wrote:
Radley also questioned by twit why I wasn't more open to embracing the ideas proffered by Glenn Reynolds and Conor Friedersdorf, "And it's probably more productive to engage, persuade new allies than to shun and mock them." Since I hate to be a shunner or mocker, and I try to be relatively informative as reflected in this response to Radley's query, I look forward to Reynolds and Friedersdorf, our new allies, engaging. Engage away, guys. Your turn.
Of course, I was shunning and mocking, just as Radley said. But then, I had no plan to suck up to Reynolds in an effort to gain him as an ally anymore than I planned to teach a pig to sing. As players in punditry go, Reynolds is a major player,* and he enjoys his importance. He doesn't swim with minnows like Gid and me. At most, he eats us for a snack. Radley may have been well-intended, but didn't really appreciate the pecking order.
Of course, there was nothing to stop Reynolds, either before or after he published his Ham Sandwich essay, from speaking with people who were actually knowledgeable about criminal law, whether that was Gid and/or me, or some other trench lawyers, who could explain why good ideas on paper don't play as well in the courtroom. But no. He didn't. Since it was his essay being published to enlighten the world, it was his duty to get a clue, and his choice not to.
My point to Radley at the time was the when loud voices with ascribed credibility write something like this, bad things happen. Bad ideas are taken more seriously. Other people will mistakenly assume that Reynolds, lawprof and all, has a clue what he's talking about and his ideas must have merit. After all, lawprofs could never be wrong about lawstuff. And now that Reynolds had rung the bell, it could not be unrung.
George Will, certainly one of this country's leading conservative intellectuals, heard the peal of Reynolds' bell this week. In an otherwise excellent column on Senators Leahy and Rand's efforts to provide a backdoor to mandatory minimums (which raises the question of why they aren't seeking to end mandatory minimums through the front door, but we'll take it anyway they offer it), Will goes from the sublime to the ridiculous:
While Instapundit is a Big Kahuna on the interwebz and among academics, George Will has a soap box that dwarfs Reynolds. And he's taken Reynolds' "ideas" mainstream, not only crediting Reynolds for his position as an academic, but taking for granted that he's got criminal law chops. It's unlikely that George checked Reynolds out at Tennessee Law School, where he teaches Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Law, Science, and Technology, Space Law, Internet Law. See criminal law in there? See anything in his past to suggest even a passing familiarity with the actual practice of criminal law? Me neither.The House Judiciary Committee has created an Over-Criminalization Task Force. Its members should read “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent,” by Harvey Silverglate, a libertarian lawyer whose book argues that prosecutors could indict most of us for three felonies a day. And the task force should read the short essay “Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee. Given the axiom that a competent prosecutor can persuade a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and given the reality of prosecutorial abuse — particularly, compelling plea bargains by overcharging with “kitchen sink” indictments — Reynolds believes “the decision to charge a person criminally should itself undergo some degree of due process scrutiny.”
He also suggests banning plea bargains: “An understanding that every criminal charge filed would have to be either backed up in open court or ignominiously dropped would significantly reduce the incentive to overcharge. . . . Our criminal justice system, as presently practiced, is basically a plea-bargain system with actual trials of guilt or innocence a bit of showy froth floating on top.”
Yet, I look forward to some fine senators extolling the virtue of a dangerous and hare-brained reform of the law, citing to Glenn Reynolds' Ham Sandwich essays as the font of practical criminal law brilliance. Because the myth has now been created and George Will gave it legs.
And this is how we end up with monumentally bad ideas being enshrined in law.
* For those who aren't familiar with Instapundit, this from Reynolds' Wikipedia page:
Much of Instapundit's content consists of links to other sites, often with brief comments. (His frequent use of "heh," "indeed," and "read the whole thing" have been widely imitated and are often parodied by other bloggers.) Reynolds encourages readers to explore the wider blogosphere and to fully read articles and posts to which he links.And that's the foundation for being a major player on the internet.
© 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/2013/07/10/how-bad-ideas-grow-legs.aspx?ref=rss
Federal Judge Censors ‘Redskins’ Name From Court Documents
A federal judge in Maryland has made it a policy to censor the name of the Washington Redskins from his rulings and other court documents that mention the team.
legal counsel legal help legal information legal news legal services
Lawyers Responding to Negative Online Reviews Tread Tricky Path
Negative online reviews are growing source of anxiety for law firms, but lawyers determined to defend their reputation must negotiate a tricky path.
U.S. Accuses Chinese Executive of Hacking to Mine Military Data
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department has charged the owner of a Chinese aviation technology company with stealing reams of information from U.S. defense contractors about key technology—the latest in an effort to criminally prosecute what American officials say is rampant Chinese industrial espionage.
Roberta Gelb on Technology Training
Roberta Gelb, president of Chelsea Office Systems, talks about how trends such as cloud computing and bring your own device (BYOD) have law firms realizing the importance of training in the adoption of new technologies.
Litigation Involving Actos, Transvaginal Mesh and Zohydro
A jury determined that drug makers hid cancer risks associated with the diabetes medicine, Actos, from the public. Complications stemming from transvaginal mesh and lawsuits by women against the manufacturers is another case of how a defective product can have a huge impact on a life. Zohydro, a controversial painkiller is making waves when it comes to prescription drug abuse. On this Ringler Radio podcast, host Larry Cohen joins Andy Birchfield and Leigh O'Dell from the Beasley Allen Law Firm, as they spotlight litigation in these cases, causing a stir across the States.
Source: http://traffic.libsyn.com/ringler/RR_041614_Actos2.mp3
business law business lawyer civil attorney colleges for lawyers colorado disability lawyer
Sunday, July 13, 2014
Litigation Involving Actos, Transvaginal Mesh and Zohydro
A jury determined that drug makers hid cancer risks associated with the diabetes medicine, Actos, from the public. Complications stemming from transvaginal mesh and lawsuits by women against the manufacturers is another case of how a defective product can have a huge impact on a life. Zohydro, a controversial painkiller is making waves when it comes to prescription drug abuse. On this Ringler Radio podcast, host Larry Cohen joins Andy Birchfield and Leigh O'Dell from the Beasley Allen Law Firm, as they spotlight litigation in these cases, causing a stir across the States.
Source: http://traffic.libsyn.com/ringler/RR_041614_Actos2.mp3
Bryan Garner on the Latest Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary
Due out this week is the 10th edition of Black's Law Dictionary. With 16,000 new definitions, 900 new maxims, and terms dated back to their first English usage, Black's Law Dictionary 10th Edition is touted to be the most comprehensive and relevant collection of legal terminology to date. But what goes into making this legal reference and how does it stay relevant in today's world? On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Black's Law Dictionary's editor-in-chief Professor Bryan A. Garner. Together they discuss the army of 300 professionals and scholars who deciphered true meanings from historic documents, ancient language, and modern usage. Tune in to hear Garner describe what goes into updating Black's and why he believes attorneys will continue to use it for generations to come.
Bryan A. Garner is a U.S. lawyer, lexicographer, and teacher who has written several books about English usage and style, including Garner's Modern American Usage and Elements of Legal Style. He has served as editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary since 1995, and coauthored two books with Justice Antonin Scalia: Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, and Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Professor Garner is a prolific lecturer, having taught more than 2,500 writing workshops since the 1991 founding of his company, LawProse, Inc., and he is a distinguished Research Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.
Bryan A. Garner is a U.S. lawyer, lexicographer, and teacher who has written several books about English usage and style, including Garner's Modern American Usage and Elements of Legal Style. He has served as editor-in-chief of Black's Law Dictionary since 1995, and coauthored two books with Justice Antonin Scalia: Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, and Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Professor Garner is a prolific lecturer, having taught more than 2,500 writing workshops since the 1991 founding of his company, LawProse, Inc., and he is a distinguished Research Professor of Law at Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law.
I Spoke Too Soon
My expectations that SJ would be moving to new digs at WordPress yesterday were brutally dashed. My initial reaction was to say "screw it, this isn't worth the hassle anymore," but I spoke with a few friends who persuaded me not to give up the effort.
It appears that my plans, having already gone through at least three iterations, need to be redrawn. While I remain disinclined to spend a substantial amount of money to make this happen as a matter of principle, the amount of work needed to accomplish this task has proven to be far harder, more involved and less interesting than previously thought. At the moment, I have neither a solution nor a plan being carried out for an imminent move. Without one, SJ will vanish one day when GoDaddy pulls the plug.
Hopefully, I will figure out a way to accomplish the move before that. In the meantime, I'll resume what I do here and if it ends up vanishing one day for lack of a viable plan, so be it. It's the best I can do for the time being and under the circumstances. Sorry that things haven't worked out better thus far, but I'm still working on it.
© 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.
It appears that my plans, having already gone through at least three iterations, need to be redrawn. While I remain disinclined to spend a substantial amount of money to make this happen as a matter of principle, the amount of work needed to accomplish this task has proven to be far harder, more involved and less interesting than previously thought. At the moment, I have neither a solution nor a plan being carried out for an imminent move. Without one, SJ will vanish one day when GoDaddy pulls the plug.
Hopefully, I will figure out a way to accomplish the move before that. In the meantime, I'll resume what I do here and if it ends up vanishing one day for lack of a viable plan, so be it. It's the best I can do for the time being and under the circumstances. Sorry that things haven't worked out better thus far, but I'm still working on it.
© 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/i-spoke-too-soon.aspx?ref=rss
legal aid eugene oregon legal aid society legal counsel legal help legal information
ABA TECHSHOW 2014 Wrapup
Tom and Dennis recently attended ABA TECHSHOW 2014, one of the premier annual legal technology conferences. While there, they observed many interesting trends, saw innovative products, and met with numerous industry professionals. On this episode of the Kennedy-Mighell Report, Dennis Kennedy and Tom Mighell discuss TECHSHOW highlights, what interested them most, and their reflections on the current state of legal technology. Tune in to learn more about the How-To sessions, Legal Technology Solutions Lab, and Speakers.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
Special thanks to our sponsor, ServeNow.
Source: http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/kennedy-mighell-report/2014/04/aba-techshow-2014-wrapup
Are Those Ribs In Your Pants, Or Are You Just Happy …
It’s not uncommon for people to try to shoplift by putting items down their pants. But an entire rack of ribs? Twice? Truth, as reported by The Sentinel (Pennsylvania).
After going three months without getting in trouble, a Carlisle man was back in police custody Sunday afternoon after trying to steal a rack or ribs by sticking them in his pants.
Carlisle police said Donald Noone, 65, attempted to pull the same stunt on May 22 at the Giant on South Spring Garden Street.
This next bit will shock you.
Both times, Noone was found to be “highly intoxicated” when he tried to steal the meat, police said.
You can read more (a fair amount) here.
Source: http://rss.justia.com/~r/LegalJuiceCom/~3/EnXYqy-YAL0/dsf-2.html
UN: ground combat now leading cause of conflict-related civilian casualties in Afghanistan
[JURIST] Ground combat engagements have surpassed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as the most common cause of conflict-related civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) [official website] reported [text, PDF] Wednesday. The report states that in the first six months of 2014, 1,901 civilian casualties, including 474 deaths, were attributed to ground engagements, accounting for 39 percent of all civilian deaths and injuries in that period. IEDs, previously the most common cause of civilian injuries,...
attorneys bankruptcy attorney bankruptcy lawyer bankruptcy lawyers best attorney
Saturday, July 12, 2014
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
Second Circuit Applies Morrison v. National Australia Bank to Allow Certain Extraterritorial Application of RICO
In European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., Case No. 11-CV-2475 (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq., could apply to conduct outside the territory of the United States. In doing so, the Second Circuit addressed the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010) [blog article here], which held that United States statutes are presumed not apply to extraterritorial conduct, unless Congress has clearly indicated its intent that the statute have extraterritorial application. Applying Morrison, the Second Circuit determined that RICO could apply to extraterritorial conduct, because a number of the statutes listed as predicate acts for RICO liability clearly apply extraterritorially. The Second Circuit ultimately concluded “that RICO applies extraterritorially if, and only if, liability or guilt could attach to extraterritorial conduct under the relevant RICO predicate.” Thus, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Morrison, RICO liability can still attach to foreign conduct where the underlying predicate statute applies to extraterritorial conduct.
In this case, the European Community and 26 of its member states (collectively the “European Community”) brought an action against RJR Nabisco, Inc. and a number of its corporate affiliates (collectively, “RJR”) alleging that “RJR directed, managed, and controlled a global money-laundering scheme with organized crime groups in violation of the RICO statute, laundered money through New York-based financial institutions and repatriated the profits of the scheme to the United States, and committed various common law torts in violation of New York state law. The complaint alleged a number of predicate racketeering acts, as required by the RICO statue, including violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, and violations of the statutes criminalizing mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations. The complaint also alleged claims under New York state law for fraud, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conversion and money had and received. RJR filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing primarily that RICO could not apply to extraterritorial conduct in the wake of Morrison.
In considering RJR’s motion to dismiss, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that the racketeering enterprise alleged in the complaint was a foreign enterprise “which consisted largely of a loose association of Colombian and Russian drug-dealing organizations and European money brokers whose activity was directed outside the United States.” The district court held that the complaint failed to state a viable RICO cause of action, because the “focus” of the RICO statute is the racketeering enterprise, and, absent a domestic enterprise, Morrison’s presumption that United States statutes do not apply extraterritorially would preclude such extraterritorial application.
The Second Circuit disagreed, holding that “Congress manifested an unmistakable intent that certain of the federal statutes adopted as predicates for RICO liability apply to extraterritorial conduct.” The Second Circuit held further that when a predicate act underlying a RICO claim applies extraterritorially, then any claim based upon that act would also. In support of this holding, the Second Circuit cited RICO predicate statutes that only apply to extraterritorial conduct, such as 18 U.S.C. § 2332, which criminalizes killing and attempting to kill United States nationals outside of the United States. The Second Circuit found that these predicate statutes exhibited Congress’s intent that, in certain circumstances, RICO should apply extraterritorially. The Second Circuit then determined that the European Community’s claims that alleged predicate acts of money laundering and providing material support for terrorism could apply extraterritorially in light of the clear indications from Congress that those statutes were designed to criminalize foreign conduct.
The Second Circuit reached a different conclusion with respect to the RICO claims based upon predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud and violations of the Travel Act. The Court held that these claims did not apply extraterritorially because Congress did not exhibit the intent to make those statutes apply extraterritorially. The Second Circuit, however, allowed those claims to proceed, because it held that the complaint alleged “that RJR essentially orchestrated a global money laundering scheme from the United States by sending employees and communications abroad.” The Court held that this allegation, and other similar allegations, established a domestic enterprise and that the alleged scheme was directed at the United States in a way that had significant domestic ramifications. Ultimately, those allegations provided a sufficient domestic nexus for the claims to proceed past the pleading stage. The Second Circuit, however, made clear that, at trial and on summary judgment, the European Community would be required to provide proof of the domestic nature of those predicate statutory violations.
Whereas the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison dealt specifically with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Second Circuit’s application of Morrison to RICO claims in this case suggests that Morrison may have significant implications beyond the securities laws. Future decisions likely will rely upon the Court’s approach here of carefully heeding the underlying principals articulated in Morrison, and requiring a showing of clear Congressional intent before any federal statute will be applied to extraterritorial conduct.
free lawyer consultation california free lawyers free legal advice free legal aid getting power of attorney
Utah Seeks To Block Benefits To Married Same-Sex Couples
The state says it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt a federal appeals court order that it provide spousal benefits.
Conviction Tossed; Juror Couldn't Look at Child Porn Evidence
A federal appeals court threw out a 14-year prison sentence and ordered a new trial in a child pornography case because a judge didn't remove a juror who couldn't vow to give the defendant a fair trial.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202637051379?rss=rss_nlj
patent lawyer personal injury personal injury attorney personal injury attorneys personal injury lawyer
Industrial Spy Gets 15 Years for Selling Secrets to China
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White said Walter Liew should be held to account for his "white-collar crime spree."
Myanmar journalists sentenced for alleged national security violations
[JURIST] A provincial court in Myanmar [BBC backgrounder] on Thursday sentenced four journalists and the chief executive from the Unity Journal [media website, in Burmese] to a 10-year prison sentence and hard labor for publishing a story in January in violation of the national State Secrets Act, a British colonial law dating back to the 1920s. The report alleged the Myanmar military had seized a sizable amount of land in the central Magwe region of the county for the purpose...
lemon law letter of attorney litigation attorney local attorney local lawyer
Hackers In China Reportedly Targeted U.S. Federal Workers
According to a report in The New York Times, hackers accessed U.S. government databases in March and apparently targeted files on employees who have applied for top-secret security clearances.
free legal aid getting power of attorney government lawyer green card lawyer immigration attorney
Friday, July 11, 2014
Bolivia lowers child labor age restriction
[JURIST] The Bolivian National Congress [official website, in Spanish] on Wednesday passed legislation permitting children as young as 10 to join the workforce as long as it does not interfere with one's education and is done independently in an effort to provide for their family. The U.N. International Labor Organization's (ILO) [official website] Carmen Moreno stated [AP report] that the new legislation would make Bolivia the first country to legally allow children as young as 10 to work. In 1999...
Source: http://jurist.org/paperchase/2014/07/bolivia-lowers-child-labor-age-restriction.php
Federal appeals court blocks Arizona immigrant driver's license policy
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] on Monday blocked [opinion, PDF] an Arizona policy barring certain immigrants from obtaining a driver's license. The decision reversed a ruling [opinion, PDF] by the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website], which had denied plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. The appeals court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their equal protection claim and that they were likely to suffer...
employment lawyer san diego employment lawyers estate attorney family law family lawyer
End of Lifed
As some of you know (and I know you know because you write me angry emails and exasperated twits), Simple Justice hasn't worked well for months now. It takes forever for the posts to load, assuming they load at all. After trying to find out from my host, GoDaddy, why this is happening, I was eventually told that they had given up on the blogging program I use, stopped doing anything to maintain its efficacy a year ago, and were preparing to "End of Life" their involvement in blogging.
Mind you, this didn't stop GoDaddy from taking my money to use their program, but I digress.
Over the past couple of months, I have been involved in an effort to move SJ to a new platform over at WordPress with a new host. It had a few hitches along the way. My initial efforts involved some of the turnkey opportunities for blawgers, one of which involved spending huge sums of money because their business model is based on dopey law firms who buy into the "every lawyer needs a blawg or will die" vision of the future.
Since this isn't a marketing tool or money maker for me, there was no way I was going to throw thousands of dollars into this hole. My basic premise is that I write and people get to read, if they want, for free. While I am happy to provide the content for my own purposes, if not yours, I am not happy to pay through the nose to amuse readers.
Another wanted me as part of their stable of law blogs, which wouldn't have been so awful except that they quickly reneged on the deal offered when they saw the volume of traffic here. Reneging isn't something I can live with.
Lacking the mad computer skillz to make this happen on my own, a few people who had significant computer skills and enjoyed SJ offered to lend a hand and make a move happen. One gave me a lead on the big issues, but was too high on the pay grade to do the dirty work. Another was happy to make the nuts and bolts of a change happen.
After being well on the way, he suffered some personal problems and, well, disappeared on me. As in, went dark. I grew far more concerned about his welfare than I was about moving this blog. Some things are real, like a good person's well-being, and to this moment, I have no clue whether he is dead or alive. I hope he gets in touch with me soon. I'm still deeply concerned.
It wasn't easy stuff. GoDaddy's system was proprietary, and didn't play nice with anyone else's system. While GoDaddy had developed an export feature to move content to WordPress, they found out that it wasn't particularly "robust," and that my rather extensive content crashed the system. It could handle about 100 blog posts. I had well over 5000. Nobody at GoDaddy anticipated someone as prolific as me.
But when their general counsel explained that I probably wasn't a great choice of people to piss off, they put some developers on the task of creating a means of moving my content. It took a couple of weeks, but they eventually managed to pull it off. It was a decidedly less than perfect solution, as they were able to include my posts and the comments, but they couldn't manage to get the contents to thread (or nest, if you prefer) at WordPress. Bear this in mind later, so no one bitches at me about the comments. It just couldn't be done.
Many people have suggested their hosts, web designers, programs, whatever, to fix the disaster of using GoDaddy. While I appreciated the concern, it wasn't really helpful after the first few thousand suggestions. Most of my griping had to do with prodding GoDaddy to keep SJ working, at least minimally, until a move could be completed. This wasn't a bleg for suggestions, but deliberate effort to poke GoDaddy by a wee bit of public shaming for their inability to do what they took money to do.
Finally, I was hooked up with a guy who, for a fee, would do what was needed to finish the move. We were on the same page, and although it irks me that I have to pay someone to do the work, I wasn't ready to let SJ die and didn't want to see the content created over the past seven plus years disappear when SJ went dark. But my new guy developed some personal issues that pulled his attention away from making the move happen, I began to think I was a curse to computer people (or maybe computer people were a curse to me?).
It appears that we're are all getting on the same page now, and provided an alien invasion, healthcare crisis or zombie Armageddon doesn't happen in the next couple of days, I anticipate that SJ will move to its new home.
It's not yet clear to me how easily I will accommodate to WordPress. I know, tons of you have told me how easy it is, but I'm an old dog and new tricks come hard. Heck, it took me a few hours to figure out how to use the "intuitive" wheel of an iPod. Yes, I can be that clueless.
I anticipate that there will a day or two, maybe more, when nothing will appear at SJ. It's not that I've quit or gone fishing. I'm not dead yet. It's just that there will be down time while all this happens, while the internet figures out that I've moved to a new home and redirects you to the right address.
There will be problems in the future as well. Images will be missing. Links will be broken. Formatting will get all screwed up do to differences in coding between GoDaddy and WordPress. It will be annoying to you. Me too, probably more so. But short of going back over the more than 5000 posts and cleaning up the mess by hand, there isn't much I can do to prevent the problems. I am not inclined to spend my time that way. Sorry, but we will all have to suck it up.
I hope this makes things a little clearer for readers, and I apologize for the problems, delays and frustration caused by GoDaddy's sucking. I've been working on it for months now, and I hope we've come to the end of the nightmare. In any event, it's better than being End of Lifed by GoDaddy.
© 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.
Mind you, this didn't stop GoDaddy from taking my money to use their program, but I digress.
Over the past couple of months, I have been involved in an effort to move SJ to a new platform over at WordPress with a new host. It had a few hitches along the way. My initial efforts involved some of the turnkey opportunities for blawgers, one of which involved spending huge sums of money because their business model is based on dopey law firms who buy into the "every lawyer needs a blawg or will die" vision of the future.
Since this isn't a marketing tool or money maker for me, there was no way I was going to throw thousands of dollars into this hole. My basic premise is that I write and people get to read, if they want, for free. While I am happy to provide the content for my own purposes, if not yours, I am not happy to pay through the nose to amuse readers.
Another wanted me as part of their stable of law blogs, which wouldn't have been so awful except that they quickly reneged on the deal offered when they saw the volume of traffic here. Reneging isn't something I can live with.
Lacking the mad computer skillz to make this happen on my own, a few people who had significant computer skills and enjoyed SJ offered to lend a hand and make a move happen. One gave me a lead on the big issues, but was too high on the pay grade to do the dirty work. Another was happy to make the nuts and bolts of a change happen.
After being well on the way, he suffered some personal problems and, well, disappeared on me. As in, went dark. I grew far more concerned about his welfare than I was about moving this blog. Some things are real, like a good person's well-being, and to this moment, I have no clue whether he is dead or alive. I hope he gets in touch with me soon. I'm still deeply concerned.
It wasn't easy stuff. GoDaddy's system was proprietary, and didn't play nice with anyone else's system. While GoDaddy had developed an export feature to move content to WordPress, they found out that it wasn't particularly "robust," and that my rather extensive content crashed the system. It could handle about 100 blog posts. I had well over 5000. Nobody at GoDaddy anticipated someone as prolific as me.
But when their general counsel explained that I probably wasn't a great choice of people to piss off, they put some developers on the task of creating a means of moving my content. It took a couple of weeks, but they eventually managed to pull it off. It was a decidedly less than perfect solution, as they were able to include my posts and the comments, but they couldn't manage to get the contents to thread (or nest, if you prefer) at WordPress. Bear this in mind later, so no one bitches at me about the comments. It just couldn't be done.
Many people have suggested their hosts, web designers, programs, whatever, to fix the disaster of using GoDaddy. While I appreciated the concern, it wasn't really helpful after the first few thousand suggestions. Most of my griping had to do with prodding GoDaddy to keep SJ working, at least minimally, until a move could be completed. This wasn't a bleg for suggestions, but deliberate effort to poke GoDaddy by a wee bit of public shaming for their inability to do what they took money to do.
Finally, I was hooked up with a guy who, for a fee, would do what was needed to finish the move. We were on the same page, and although it irks me that I have to pay someone to do the work, I wasn't ready to let SJ die and didn't want to see the content created over the past seven plus years disappear when SJ went dark. But my new guy developed some personal issues that pulled his attention away from making the move happen, I began to think I was a curse to computer people (or maybe computer people were a curse to me?).
It appears that we're are all getting on the same page now, and provided an alien invasion, healthcare crisis or zombie Armageddon doesn't happen in the next couple of days, I anticipate that SJ will move to its new home.
It's not yet clear to me how easily I will accommodate to WordPress. I know, tons of you have told me how easy it is, but I'm an old dog and new tricks come hard. Heck, it took me a few hours to figure out how to use the "intuitive" wheel of an iPod. Yes, I can be that clueless.
I anticipate that there will a day or two, maybe more, when nothing will appear at SJ. It's not that I've quit or gone fishing. I'm not dead yet. It's just that there will be down time while all this happens, while the internet figures out that I've moved to a new home and redirects you to the right address.
There will be problems in the future as well. Images will be missing. Links will be broken. Formatting will get all screwed up do to differences in coding between GoDaddy and WordPress. It will be annoying to you. Me too, probably more so. But short of going back over the more than 5000 posts and cleaning up the mess by hand, there isn't much I can do to prevent the problems. I am not inclined to spend my time that way. Sorry, but we will all have to suck it up.
I hope this makes things a little clearer for readers, and I apologize for the problems, delays and frustration caused by GoDaddy's sucking. I've been working on it for months now, and I hope we've come to the end of the nightmare. In any event, it's better than being End of Lifed by GoDaddy.
© 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/2013/07/10/end-of-lifed.aspx?ref=rss
U.S. Accuses Chinese Executive of Hacking to Mine Military Data
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department has charged the owner of a Chinese aviation technology company with stealing reams of information from U.S. defense contractors about key technology—the latest in an effort to criminally prosecute what American officials say is rampant Chinese industrial espionage.
lawyer firm lawyer malpractice attorneys lawyer office lawyers legal
EU court rules on transparency of commission planning transatlantic trade agreement
[JURIST] The European Court of Justice (ECJ) [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Thursday that the European Commission [official website] is not being sufficiently transparent regarding negotiations with the US on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) [policy website]. The TTIP aims to remove trade barriers between the EU and US, and make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between them. The court concluded that documents related to international activity, including the TTIP, must still comply with...
The FBI’s Massive Facial Recognition Database: Privacy Implications
On February 12th of 2008, the FBI announced that it had hired Lockheed Martin to build its Next Generation Identification system (NGI) to deploy multimodal matching to biometric data of US citizens. Today, NGI's database contains several types of unique identifiers including fingerprints, iris prints, and facial recognition. On this episode of Digital Detectives, hosts Sharon Nelson and John Simek interview Jennifer Lynch from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Together they discuss false identifications, mandatory background checks, and the First Amendment right to be anonymous. Tune in to learn more about EFF's FOIA request and how the FBI is using the data of the innocent to look for guilty parties.
Jennifer Lynch is a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending civil liberties in the digital world. At EFF, Jennifer works on privacy issues in new technologies such as biometrics, domestic drones, and location tracking devices. She successfully sued the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection to obtain thousands of pages of previously unpublished drone records and has testified about facial recognition and its Fourth Amendment implications before the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
Jennifer Lynch is a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to defending civil liberties in the digital world. At EFF, Jennifer works on privacy issues in new technologies such as biometrics, domestic drones, and location tracking devices. She successfully sued the Federal Aviation Administration and Customs and Border Protection to obtain thousands of pages of previously unpublished drone records and has testified about facial recognition and its Fourth Amendment implications before the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law.
Special thanks to our sponsor, Digital WarRoom.
electronic power of attorney employment attorney employment law employment law courses employment lawyer
Washington Litigation Departments of the Year
Top lawyers in Washington litigation practices were busier than ever in 2013 representing big-name clients in disputes over affirmative action, patents, insurance, false claims and prison—to name a few areas.
Source: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202661157321?rss=rss_nlj
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)