So this was pretty amusing to me, I have acute insomnia and tend to watch late night TV which is filled with annoying 900# commercials and every 5 minutes a Girls Gone Wild advertisment. This article link is about the founder of girls gone wild cheating the government on his taxes for 6 years! He has entered a guilty plea and is avoiding jail time by paying a larg fine. So he's back to videoing crazy drunk college students and making my night time TV annoying...I find it ridiculous myself but read the article also below are some links to articles before and during his trial.
http://crime.about.com/b/2009/09/23/girls-gone-wild-founder-pleads-in-tax-case.htm
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Sears Agrees to Multimillion-Dollar Settlement Over Firing of Disabled Workers
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has announced a record $6.2 million Americans with Disabilities Act settlement of a nationwide class action against Sears, Roebuck & Co. over the firing of disabled workers. The agency described it as the largest ADA settlement in a single EEOC lawsuit. The EEOC sued Hoffman Estates, Ill. based Sears in 2004 following a complaint from an injured applicance service technician. This former Sears empolyee told the EEOC that Sears fired him after he took a leave for knee, wrist and back injuries suffered on the job. The employee repeatedly tried to return to work despite his continuing disabilities. In pretrial discovery the EEOC found hundreds of other employees had encountered the same treatment at Sears. This settlement should be a wake-up call for employers who lack policies that incorporate the requirement of both workers' compensation laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Sears said in a statement that it settled the case to avoid expensive, multi-year litigation over the matter, but maintained that its policies are geared to meet the requirements of the ADA.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Fee for Cruise Passengers in Alaska
This is an interesting article about a law which allows Alaska to charge a $50 per person tax on passengers who travel on cruises through Alaska. The Alaska Cruise Association filed a lawsuit against Alaska's legislature arguing that the tax is a violation of a federal law which states that states cannot impose fees on passengers for non-related services. The Alaska Cruise Association argues that the money has been used to fund projects that have nothing to do with and do not benefit cruise passengers. The state Attorney General Dan Sullivan argues that Alaska is doing nothing more than requiring passengers to pay "their fair share of the costs of services and facilities provided to host them."
The issue reminds me somewhat of the issue that Lisa brought up in her post States and Towns Lean on Taxpayers
The full article can be found here:
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/222942-alaska-ag-to-defend-cruise-ship-tax
The issue reminds me somewhat of the issue that Lisa brought up in her post States and Towns Lean on Taxpayers
The full article can be found here:
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/222942-alaska-ag-to-defend-cruise-ship-tax
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Bomb Making Suspect
I was astonished when seeing and then reading this article, fortunately there wasn't a terrorist attack and thank god this guy was captured before anything could have happened. This is very scary! http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=7034493
2nd US Court of Appeals Overturns US District Court Ruling
On Monday September 21, 2009 the 2nd US Court of Appeals (a 2 judge panel) overturned a US District Court decision regarding the rights of States and three land trusts to sue power companies over carbon dioxide emissions. In 2005 a US District Court Ruling by Judge Loretta Preska threw the case out claiming that it was more of a political issue than a court issue.
The Appeals Court Justices did not believe that this was the case at all. The court wrote in a statement that it was not right to deny a case simply because it might have political ramifications.
In a statement given by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, "It's highly significant that the federal court has affirmed the right of states to challange the greenhouse gas emissions generated by coal-fired power plants."
Lawsuits filed on behalf of eight states - California, Connecticut, Iwoa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin and three Land Trusts - Open Space Institute Inc., Open Space Conservancy Inc., and the Audubon Scoiety of New Hampshire are now able to proceed in the court system. The lawsuits seek to force the power companies to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal states that money is not the issue; what they are interested in is the reduction of pollutants in our environment.
I think that a state is an entitly and should have the right to sue. The utility should not have any different treatment than a normal business establishment with regard to pollution. It seems in this case that the checks and balances of the legal system have produced a fair resolution on appeal. What are comments you may have? Is there some reason a state should not be able to sue a utility?
The Appeals Court Justices did not believe that this was the case at all. The court wrote in a statement that it was not right to deny a case simply because it might have political ramifications.
In a statement given by California Attorney General Jerry Brown, "It's highly significant that the federal court has affirmed the right of states to challange the greenhouse gas emissions generated by coal-fired power plants."
Lawsuits filed on behalf of eight states - California, Connecticut, Iwoa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin and three Land Trusts - Open Space Institute Inc., Open Space Conservancy Inc., and the Audubon Scoiety of New Hampshire are now able to proceed in the court system. The lawsuits seek to force the power companies to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. The Attorney General of Connecticut, Richard Blumenthal states that money is not the issue; what they are interested in is the reduction of pollutants in our environment.
I think that a state is an entitly and should have the right to sue. The utility should not have any different treatment than a normal business establishment with regard to pollution. It seems in this case that the checks and balances of the legal system have produced a fair resolution on appeal. What are comments you may have? Is there some reason a state should not be able to sue a utility?
Iowa Attorney General Sues Four Businesses
Cudos to the Iowa Attorney General for following through and suing four businesses in Iowa who did excavating without notifying the "One Call" hotline. The purpose of the "One Call" hotline is to give utilities 48 hours prior notice before digging begins in any location so that underground hazards can be marked. Those hazards could range from gas, water and sewer lines to communications wiring like electric, phone or cable.
State law 8207 was created for the purpose of protecting the construction workers and the public from injury or death and it was ignored. Attorney General Tom Miller brought suit against those four businesses in district courts in four different counties in Iowa. The lawsuits allege that in all four cases gas or hazardous liquid lines were damaged or posed dangerous situations. The four District Court Justices levied penalties from $1000 to S10,000 on each of the businesses, and the lawsuits are pending. Hopefully the lawsuits, the penalties, and the bad publicity will correct future dangerous public safety behavior on the part of these businesses.
This article was found at http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/223-9-iowa-penalized-for-failure-to-comply-with-one-call-law8207
State law 8207 was created for the purpose of protecting the construction workers and the public from injury or death and it was ignored. Attorney General Tom Miller brought suit against those four businesses in district courts in four different counties in Iowa. The lawsuits allege that in all four cases gas or hazardous liquid lines were damaged or posed dangerous situations. The four District Court Justices levied penalties from $1000 to S10,000 on each of the businesses, and the lawsuits are pending. Hopefully the lawsuits, the penalties, and the bad publicity will correct future dangerous public safety behavior on the part of these businesses.
This article was found at http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/223-9-iowa-penalized-for-failure-to-comply-with-one-call-law8207
States and Towns Lean on Taxpayers
States and Towns Lean on Taxpayers
As posted in the Wall Street Journal, 09/26/09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125392874638642923.html
Several states appear to be climbing on the bandwagon in search of ways to increase their revenue in the unstable economy. Many states have begun to impose fees on certain products sold (discretely labeling them as “fees” in lieu of “taxes”.) Additionally, several states are attempting to retrieve back taxes from many businesses. (Please see article, link attached.)
It is my opinion that back taxes, due and owing, should be paid by businesses or private citizens alike however, new “fees” levied against businesses for the sole attempt of increasing state & town revenue should be deemed unlawful.
Additionally, what the state/town government officials who impose these fees are not considering, is the ultimate impact on the local businesses and consumers alike. If too many business are forced to close their doors due to extra taxes (however disguised), it hurts the local economy more than it helps, as well as the national economy, trickling down to the individual consumer and business owner. Either business owners cannot afford to retain their businesses or they pass their losses on to consumers in the form of higher prices, of which the consumers cannot afford. It appears to be a lose, lose situation either way I look at it.
Ultimately, if too many businesses close their doors, there will be no revenue for the state/town government to receive in any form.
As posted in the Wall Street Journal, 09/26/09
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125392874638642923.html
Several states appear to be climbing on the bandwagon in search of ways to increase their revenue in the unstable economy. Many states have begun to impose fees on certain products sold (discretely labeling them as “fees” in lieu of “taxes”.) Additionally, several states are attempting to retrieve back taxes from many businesses. (Please see article, link attached.)
It is my opinion that back taxes, due and owing, should be paid by businesses or private citizens alike however, new “fees” levied against businesses for the sole attempt of increasing state & town revenue should be deemed unlawful.
Additionally, what the state/town government officials who impose these fees are not considering, is the ultimate impact on the local businesses and consumers alike. If too many business are forced to close their doors due to extra taxes (however disguised), it hurts the local economy more than it helps, as well as the national economy, trickling down to the individual consumer and business owner. Either business owners cannot afford to retain their businesses or they pass their losses on to consumers in the form of higher prices, of which the consumers cannot afford. It appears to be a lose, lose situation either way I look at it.
Ultimately, if too many businesses close their doors, there will be no revenue for the state/town government to receive in any form.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Farm Workers' Wages to Increase Under Labor Agreement
Good news for Farmers!!! Many are saying the economy is turning around, im sure farmers agree now!
In what Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis called a "huge victory" for farm workers, one of the country's largest food service companies announced Friday that it will buy winter tomatoes only from growers that pay a fair wage and offer good working conditions.
The Compass Group, which buys 10 million pounds of tomatoes annually, will pay an additional 1.5 cents per pound for all the tomatoes it purchases; one cent per pound will go directly to the workers.
That might not sound like a lot. But it will boost workers' wages from 50 cents for a 32-pound bucket to 82 cents per bucket, a 64 percent raise. The decision, made in partnership with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a South Florida farm workers organization, also includes a strict code of conduct to monitor hours worked and employee safety. East Coast Growers and Packers, the third-largest tomato grower in Florida, has agreed to Compass's terms
view full article here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502278.html?wprss=rss_nation
In what Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis called a "huge victory" for farm workers, one of the country's largest food service companies announced Friday that it will buy winter tomatoes only from growers that pay a fair wage and offer good working conditions.
The Compass Group, which buys 10 million pounds of tomatoes annually, will pay an additional 1.5 cents per pound for all the tomatoes it purchases; one cent per pound will go directly to the workers.
That might not sound like a lot. But it will boost workers' wages from 50 cents for a 32-pound bucket to 82 cents per bucket, a 64 percent raise. The decision, made in partnership with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a South Florida farm workers organization, also includes a strict code of conduct to monitor hours worked and employee safety. East Coast Growers and Packers, the third-largest tomato grower in Florida, has agreed to Compass's terms
view full article here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/25/AR2009092502278.html?wprss=rss_nation
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Abercrombie & Fitch Faces Lawsuit Over Muslim Headscarf
Abercrombie & Fitch Faces Lawsuit Over Muslim Headscarf
By SEAN GREGORY Sean Gregory – Thu Sep 24, 2:45 pm ET
Given the hyper-sexualized advertising that Abercrombie & Fitch has long embraced, it is no surprise that the company encourages its employees to let their hair down. But is the company practicing discrimination if it won't hire a young woman who covers her head for religious reasons? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last week the EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie on behalf of Samantha Elauf, a 19-year-old community college student from Tulsa, Okla., who is Muslim. The suit alleges that Abercrombie "refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of the headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy," or employee dress code. The suit says that Abercrombie "failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy. These actions constitute discrimination against Ms. Elauf on the basis of religion." (See pictures of being Muslim in America.)
Elauf, who had experience working in retail, interviewed for a position at a Tulsa Abercrombie Kids store in June 2008. During the interview, she wore a black hijab, or headscarf, in line with Muslim religious tradition. According to the EEOC, Elauf got word through a friend, who worked in the store, that the headscarf cost her the job. The EEOC alleges that during its investigation, Abercrombie & Fitch flatly told the agency, in a position statement, that "under the Look Policy, associates must wear clothing that is consistent with the Abercrombie brand, cannot wear hats or other coverings, and cannot wear clothes that are the color black." Elauf is suing for back pay and compensation related to emotional pain and anxiety. "If these allegations are true," says Chuck Thornton, deputy director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, "they are serious. In this day and age, it's not acceptable. Certainly, a headscarf is part and parcel of the Islamic experience." (Read "How to Reach Teens in a Recession? Ask A[a {e}]ropostale.")
When contacted for a response, Abercrombie & Fitch issued the following statement: "We cannot comment on pending litigation. We have a strong equal-opportunity policy, and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible. We are confident that the litigation of this matter will demonstrate that we have followed the law in every respect."
Was Abercrombie & Fitch within its rights to enforce its dress code? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire .... any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin," the law states. The key language, says Stewart Schwab, an employment lawyer and dean of Cornell Law School, is found in a 1972 amendment to Title VII. This amendment defined "religion." It reads, "The term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."
This case could hinge on a jury's interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship." If Abercrombie & Fitch had made an exception of its Look Policy for Elauf - a "reasonable accommodation" - would that move have hurt the Abercrombie brand? On the surface, that argument seems specious, at best. Would shoppers at that Abercrombie Kids store have been so jarred by the hijab that they wouldn't have bought the company's jeans? If the company makes that case, it doesn't think much of the religious tolerance of the good folks of Oklahoma. (Read "Abercrombie & Fitch: Worst Recession Brand?")
Still, this case is far from a lock for Elauf. "You can't give a blanket statement that this clearly violates her rights," says Schwab. "Employers often win cases involving dress codes. There's a general feeling that employers are entitled to set an image in their stores." If a company sells sex - you can sometimes find a shirtless male model hanging out in front of Abercrombie stores - let's face it, head coverings aren't ideal.
No matter how the suit turns out, Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't need another headache. The company just announced more dismal sales figures: August same-store sales declined 29%. In 2004, the EEOC sued Abercrombie for limiting its hiring of minorities; that case was settled for $50 million. A British woman sued the company for discrimination after Abercrombie's management allegedly shunted her to the stockroom for wearing a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm. In August, a tribunal awarded her nearly $15,000. The EEOC has also sued Hollister, a teen retailer owned by Abercrombie, for allegedly firing a Pentecostal worker who asked to dress more modestly. That case is still pending.
As for Elauf, she is under attorney's orders to keep quiet about the case. But her grandfather, Ata Elauf, is clearly irked. "They put a wedge into her Americanism," says Elauf. "She grew up here speaking the language, going to school. Why did they do this? She's sort of confused."
Read "Brief History: Affirmative Action."
View this article on Time.com
Related articles on Time.com:
By SEAN GREGORY Sean Gregory – Thu Sep 24, 2:45 pm ET
Given the hyper-sexualized advertising that Abercrombie & Fitch has long embraced, it is no surprise that the company encourages its employees to let their hair down. But is the company practicing discrimination if it won't hire a young woman who covers her head for religious reasons? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Last week the EEOC filed suit against Abercrombie on behalf of Samantha Elauf, a 19-year-old community college student from Tulsa, Okla., who is Muslim. The suit alleges that Abercrombie "refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of the headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy," or employee dress code. The suit says that Abercrombie "failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy. These actions constitute discrimination against Ms. Elauf on the basis of religion." (See pictures of being Muslim in America.)
Elauf, who had experience working in retail, interviewed for a position at a Tulsa Abercrombie Kids store in June 2008. During the interview, she wore a black hijab, or headscarf, in line with Muslim religious tradition. According to the EEOC, Elauf got word through a friend, who worked in the store, that the headscarf cost her the job. The EEOC alleges that during its investigation, Abercrombie & Fitch flatly told the agency, in a position statement, that "under the Look Policy, associates must wear clothing that is consistent with the Abercrombie brand, cannot wear hats or other coverings, and cannot wear clothes that are the color black." Elauf is suing for back pay and compensation related to emotional pain and anxiety. "If these allegations are true," says Chuck Thornton, deputy director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, "they are serious. In this day and age, it's not acceptable. Certainly, a headscarf is part and parcel of the Islamic experience." (Read "How to Reach Teens in a Recession? Ask A[a {e}]ropostale.")
When contacted for a response, Abercrombie & Fitch issued the following statement: "We cannot comment on pending litigation. We have a strong equal-opportunity policy, and we accommodate religious beliefs and practices when possible. We are confident that the litigation of this matter will demonstrate that we have followed the law in every respect."
Was Abercrombie & Fitch within its rights to enforce its dress code? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire .... any individual ... because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin," the law states. The key language, says Stewart Schwab, an employment lawyer and dean of Cornell Law School, is found in a 1972 amendment to Title VII. This amendment defined "religion." It reads, "The term 'religion' includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business."
This case could hinge on a jury's interpretation of the phrase "undue hardship." If Abercrombie & Fitch had made an exception of its Look Policy for Elauf - a "reasonable accommodation" - would that move have hurt the Abercrombie brand? On the surface, that argument seems specious, at best. Would shoppers at that Abercrombie Kids store have been so jarred by the hijab that they wouldn't have bought the company's jeans? If the company makes that case, it doesn't think much of the religious tolerance of the good folks of Oklahoma. (Read "Abercrombie & Fitch: Worst Recession Brand?")
Still, this case is far from a lock for Elauf. "You can't give a blanket statement that this clearly violates her rights," says Schwab. "Employers often win cases involving dress codes. There's a general feeling that employers are entitled to set an image in their stores." If a company sells sex - you can sometimes find a shirtless male model hanging out in front of Abercrombie stores - let's face it, head coverings aren't ideal.
No matter how the suit turns out, Abercrombie & Fitch doesn't need another headache. The company just announced more dismal sales figures: August same-store sales declined 29%. In 2004, the EEOC sued Abercrombie for limiting its hiring of minorities; that case was settled for $50 million. A British woman sued the company for discrimination after Abercrombie's management allegedly shunted her to the stockroom for wearing a cardigan to cover her prosthetic arm. In August, a tribunal awarded her nearly $15,000. The EEOC has also sued Hollister, a teen retailer owned by Abercrombie, for allegedly firing a Pentecostal worker who asked to dress more modestly. That case is still pending.
As for Elauf, she is under attorney's orders to keep quiet about the case. But her grandfather, Ata Elauf, is clearly irked. "They put a wedge into her Americanism," says Elauf. "She grew up here speaking the language, going to school. Why did they do this? She's sort of confused."
Read "Brief History: Affirmative Action."
View this article on Time.com
Related articles on Time.com:
Lawsuit filed against AMEX, government in Miami
Lawsuit filed against AMEX, government in Miami
9/19/2009, 3:29 p.m. EDT
The Associated Press
(AP) — MIAMI - A Miami banker is suing American Express-his former employer-and the Justice Department, saying they tarnished his name.
Sergio Masvidal claims in a lawsuit filed Friday that the credit card company and the government partnered in an illegal conspiracy at the same time that American Express was prosecuted for violating anti-money-laundering reporting laws.
He told The Miami Herald that he has evidence of a "secret termination agreement" from Aug. 2007 between his ex-employer and the Justice Department that said he would be fired after the sale of the bank or a year after the agreement. His lawyer told The Associated Press on Saturday that Masvidal found out about the letter a month later, but continued to work with the company until leaving at the end of February 2008 when the bank was sold.
');
}
-->
American Express "threw him under the bus to keep the feds happy and protect themselves. They made him a scapegoat," said attorney Joseph DeMaria.
Phone messages left by The Associated Press on Saturday with American Express and the Justice Department were not immediately returned.
Masvidal says the Justice Department agreed to drop criminal charges against American Express if the international bank strengthened its policies and enforcement against money laundering.
However, he says the secret agreement also called for his firing and made him appear to be an unindicted co-conspirator. He says the agreement placed blame for the lax policies on him and ruined his career. He is seeking $7.5 million in punitive damages from the company.
Masvidal, a 63-year-old former chairman of American Express Bank International, earned an average of $1 million a year. His lawyer said they were not seeking damages from the government, but only to have Masvidal's name cleared.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
9/19/2009, 3:29 p.m. EDT
The Associated Press
(AP) — MIAMI - A Miami banker is suing American Express-his former employer-and the Justice Department, saying they tarnished his name.
Sergio Masvidal claims in a lawsuit filed Friday that the credit card company and the government partnered in an illegal conspiracy at the same time that American Express was prosecuted for violating anti-money-laundering reporting laws.
He told The Miami Herald that he has evidence of a "secret termination agreement" from Aug. 2007 between his ex-employer and the Justice Department that said he would be fired after the sale of the bank or a year after the agreement. His lawyer told The Associated Press on Saturday that Masvidal found out about the letter a month later, but continued to work with the company until leaving at the end of February 2008 when the bank was sold.
');
}
-->
American Express "threw him under the bus to keep the feds happy and protect themselves. They made him a scapegoat," said attorney Joseph DeMaria.
Phone messages left by The Associated Press on Saturday with American Express and the Justice Department were not immediately returned.
Masvidal says the Justice Department agreed to drop criminal charges against American Express if the international bank strengthened its policies and enforcement against money laundering.
However, he says the secret agreement also called for his firing and made him appear to be an unindicted co-conspirator. He says the agreement placed blame for the lax policies on him and ruined his career. He is seeking $7.5 million in punitive damages from the company.
Masvidal, a 63-year-old former chairman of American Express Bank International, earned an average of $1 million a year. His lawyer said they were not seeking damages from the government, but only to have Masvidal's name cleared.
© 2009 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved
Employee of Perot Affiliate Charged With Insider Trades on Takeover Talks
Employee of Perot Affiliate Charged With Insider Trades on Takeover Talks
As posted in the Wall Street Journal today, 09/24/09.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125374874441435751.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Should an employee of a company be prosecuted for purchasing and selling stock based upon a guess that the company will be taken over or merge with another?
From my experience as an employee within several different large organizations, when the “higher-ups” had meetings regarding reorganization or such, we “peons” were the last to know and were not informed, even on a managerial level, until the transaction was a “done deal.” This said, could a person speculate a prospective deal and act accordingly without truly receiving first-hand knowledge? Perhaps, yes. Likely, doubtful.
Someone, somewhere would have had to have raised a flag in order for Reza Saleh to have considered and followed-through with such a high-risk endeavor, if the information had not yet been released to the public.
I applaud the SEC for the action which they took and hope tht Reza Saleh is prosecuted accordingly.
As posted in the Wall Street Journal today, 09/24/09.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125374874441435751.html#mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Should an employee of a company be prosecuted for purchasing and selling stock based upon a guess that the company will be taken over or merge with another?
From my experience as an employee within several different large organizations, when the “higher-ups” had meetings regarding reorganization or such, we “peons” were the last to know and were not informed, even on a managerial level, until the transaction was a “done deal.” This said, could a person speculate a prospective deal and act accordingly without truly receiving first-hand knowledge? Perhaps, yes. Likely, doubtful.
Someone, somewhere would have had to have raised a flag in order for Reza Saleh to have considered and followed-through with such a high-risk endeavor, if the information had not yet been released to the public.
I applaud the SEC for the action which they took and hope tht Reza Saleh is prosecuted accordingly.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Dangers of Facebook
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/09/14/Pa-man-accused-of-making-Facebook-threats/UPI-31591252943272/?pvn=1
I believe that facebook can be a dangerous site if not used for it's intentional purposes as I stated in response to Donna's article. The example I stated, a Springfield male made threats on facebook that led the police to search his house and the 22 year old in big trouble. I came across one of the articles to show why I believe this could be dangerous.
I believe that facebook can be a dangerous site if not used for it's intentional purposes as I stated in response to Donna's article. The example I stated, a Springfield male made threats on facebook that led the police to search his house and the 22 year old in big trouble. I came across one of the articles to show why I believe this could be dangerous.
European Adviser Backs Google on Trademarks
European Adviser Backs Google on Trademarks
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23google.html?ref=business
Much like most individuals in my income bracket (or lately, lack-thereof), product trademarks are commonplace, even if the product is not altogether authentic. I must admit I purchased a knock-off designer bag at a flea market. Held side-by-side next to the real thing (which my neighbor has), most, if not all, would be hard-pressed to be able to identify the authentic bag. My neighbor claims that after spending over $1600 for the real thing that it ultimately guaranteed for life that if it tears or the stitching comes out, it will be repaired or replaced at no cost. My contention is that if something happened to my bag, I would throw it away and replace it for another $25.
In today’s society there are still terms used which are in fact trademarked but not necessarily refer to the exact product. My mother still refers to a tissue as a Kleenex, even though I use Puffs. More often than not cola is not called such, but Coke or Pepsi.
When searching for criteria on-line, the same applies. Products are referred to by commonplace names to identify branding. As Google pointed out in the link, paid advertisements appear when key words/names are utilized. This too aids in the consumer locating the product for which they are searching.
This is one of the rare instances that I agree with the court’s ruling that there is no trademark infringement by Google for allowing key search words/terms (even proper product brands) to be utilized in product identification. It certainly makes searching the internet more user-friendly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23google.html?ref=business
Much like most individuals in my income bracket (or lately, lack-thereof), product trademarks are commonplace, even if the product is not altogether authentic. I must admit I purchased a knock-off designer bag at a flea market. Held side-by-side next to the real thing (which my neighbor has), most, if not all, would be hard-pressed to be able to identify the authentic bag. My neighbor claims that after spending over $1600 for the real thing that it ultimately guaranteed for life that if it tears or the stitching comes out, it will be repaired or replaced at no cost. My contention is that if something happened to my bag, I would throw it away and replace it for another $25.
In today’s society there are still terms used which are in fact trademarked but not necessarily refer to the exact product. My mother still refers to a tissue as a Kleenex, even though I use Puffs. More often than not cola is not called such, but Coke or Pepsi.
When searching for criteria on-line, the same applies. Products are referred to by commonplace names to identify branding. As Google pointed out in the link, paid advertisements appear when key words/names are utilized. This too aids in the consumer locating the product for which they are searching.
This is one of the rare instances that I agree with the court’s ruling that there is no trademark infringement by Google for allowing key search words/terms (even proper product brands) to be utilized in product identification. It certainly makes searching the internet more user-friendly.
Judge Rejects Approval of Biotech Sugar Beets
Once again, the negligence of a governmental authority may significantly impact the farm industry and consumers alike. The attached link was retrieved on-line, as published on 09/22/09 in The New York Times, Business Section.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23beet.html?ref=business
Judge Jeffrey S. White (of Federal District Court in San Francisco) ruled that the government was negligent in analyzing and reporting environmental impacts of genetically engineered sugar beets. Similar to a case decided two years prior regarding genetically engineered alfalfa in which a judge ruled that the alfalfa could no longer be planted nor harvested until the U.S. Department of Agriculture analyzed and reported on the impact of the crops. One of the main problems since the alfalfa decision is that two years later, no report has been documented. If the sugar beets meet a similar fate (as 95% of the current sugar beet crops have been genetically engineered), the financial impact to both farmers and consumers could be severely detrimental.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/business/23beet.html?ref=business
Judge Jeffrey S. White (of Federal District Court in San Francisco) ruled that the government was negligent in analyzing and reporting environmental impacts of genetically engineered sugar beets. Similar to a case decided two years prior regarding genetically engineered alfalfa in which a judge ruled that the alfalfa could no longer be planted nor harvested until the U.S. Department of Agriculture analyzed and reported on the impact of the crops. One of the main problems since the alfalfa decision is that two years later, no report has been documented. If the sugar beets meet a similar fate (as 95% of the current sugar beet crops have been genetically engineered), the financial impact to both farmers and consumers could be severely detrimental.
White cop discriminated for corn rows
This is a video and a article on a Philly cop who currently has a law suet for being discriminated against for putting his hair in corn rows. His supervisor who is a black man took him off street duty and penalized him for the hair do saying it was unprofessional, however several black officers are claimed to have corn rows in the philadelphia police dept. Another claim was they assumed his hat wouldnt fit correctly... This is an obvious case of discrimination in the philadelphia police dept. I agree cops should have a professional clean appearance but this policy should be held for all genders and races then.
video> http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26548009/cornrow-cop.htm#q=corn+row
article> http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/59967627.html
video> http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26548009/cornrow-cop.htm#q=corn+row
article> http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/59967627.html
Monday, September 21, 2009
Abercrombie & Fitch sued over Muslim teen
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2009-09-18-anf-sued
In this article the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch had a lawsuit filed against them stating an Oklahoma store refused to hire a 17 year old Muslim girl because she wore a head scarf. The manager of the store stated the girls head scarf violates the store's "Look Policy." This would be a case where someones right to practice their religion has been violated which is against the U.S. Constitution.
In this article the clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch had a lawsuit filed against them stating an Oklahoma store refused to hire a 17 year old Muslim girl because she wore a head scarf. The manager of the store stated the girls head scarf violates the store's "Look Policy." This would be a case where someones right to practice their religion has been violated which is against the U.S. Constitution.
Billboards Spur a Fight: Free Speech vs. Beauty
The First Amendment of the Constitution: Free Speech: (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
Do the courts have the right to find in favor of cities, states or municipalities and deny this Constitutional right?
Please see the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/nyregion/14billboards.html?ref=nyregion
A version of this article appeared in print on September 14, 2009, on page A14 of the New York edition.
New York, a city unlike most, but similar in the respect that many an individual or individuals establish(s) a business in the hopes of reaping the benefits of success.
Along with the day-to-day operations of any business comes the promotion thereof. As any good business owner is aware, advertising, to some degree, is paramount to success.
As stated in the attached link, the courts have ruled in favor of the city regarding the regulation of advertising via billboard placement, thus denying the fundamental right of Free Speech.
Through several loopholes, it appears that some signs are legal and others, not. However, due to minimal or no enforcement to date, the reality is that differentiating between the two appears to be impossible.
The City’s right to control/regulate this advertising, inclusive of their own billboard advertising (which seems hypocritical to me), is currently under appeal.
Do the courts have the right to find in favor of cities, states or municipalities and deny this Constitutional right?
Please see the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/nyregion/14billboards.html?ref=nyregion
A version of this article appeared in print on September 14, 2009, on page A14 of the New York edition.
New York, a city unlike most, but similar in the respect that many an individual or individuals establish(s) a business in the hopes of reaping the benefits of success.
Along with the day-to-day operations of any business comes the promotion thereof. As any good business owner is aware, advertising, to some degree, is paramount to success.
As stated in the attached link, the courts have ruled in favor of the city regarding the regulation of advertising via billboard placement, thus denying the fundamental right of Free Speech.
Through several loopholes, it appears that some signs are legal and others, not. However, due to minimal or no enforcement to date, the reality is that differentiating between the two appears to be impossible.
The City’s right to control/regulate this advertising, inclusive of their own billboard advertising (which seems hypocritical to me), is currently under appeal.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cyberspace Jurisdiction
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2673_129/ai_75496828/
Since this topic of cyberspace jurisdiction came to much interest to me I decided to research a little more and came across an article talking about the jurisdiction and rules that should be reviewed before deciding to sell or purchase sales over the internet. I don't think that many of the people who do sell or purchase over the internet don't think to look into it first possibly believing that everything will go fine and I believe this is a very helpful site.
Since this topic of cyberspace jurisdiction came to much interest to me I decided to research a little more and came across an article talking about the jurisdiction and rules that should be reviewed before deciding to sell or purchase sales over the internet. I don't think that many of the people who do sell or purchase over the internet don't think to look into it first possibly believing that everything will go fine and I believe this is a very helpful site.
Prison guards demand right to complain online
This article is an issue dealing with facebook which im sure many of you have, even my mom has one. Some guards who had a facebook vented their personal feelings on their page about superiors they dislike. The superiors found it and are trying to take disciplinary actions against the guards or even fire them. Theyre fighting this claiming its bordering violation of privacy and that facebook is a social networking site for personal use and this was done on personal time. It pretty interesting, I never heard of anyone getting in trouble for something like this. I worked in a retail store where we all had a myspace and some drama went down but never brought into the work place. I dont think they should be punished, have a read and feel free to comment.
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=current+business+events&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F
http://www.ask.com/bar?q=current+business+events&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=0&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2F
Thursday, September 17, 2009
New SEC Division Announced Aftermath of Madoff
As most peple are well aware Bernard Madoff's $50 billion ponzi scheme has rocked the financial world. His business rendered penniless many private citizens. The range of legal proceedings is endless. This has caused most rational individuals to question whether to trust those who handle our money. While the courts are crowded with litigation of his fraud, the Executive branch of government involved, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been critized for it's failure to research reports of criminal activity.
In responding to public fears, the SEC has recently announced it is creating a "Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation Division". This new division is supposed to combine the Office of Economic Analysis and the Office of Risk Assessment. They are supposed to look at new develpoments and trends, risk, and regulatory issues. How does making two departments into one change the effect of those doing the job? If they had fully investigated in the first place we would have much less of a legal mess. Who has been held accountable for the oversight of the SEC? sectionhttp://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/09/sec-taps-derivatives-expert-for-new-division.html
In responding to public fears, the SEC has recently announced it is creating a "Risk, Strategy and Financial Innovation Division". This new division is supposed to combine the Office of Economic Analysis and the Office of Risk Assessment. They are supposed to look at new develpoments and trends, risk, and regulatory issues. How does making two departments into one change the effect of those doing the job? If they had fully investigated in the first place we would have much less of a legal mess. Who has been held accountable for the oversight of the SEC? sectionhttp://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/09/sec-taps-derivatives-expert-for-new-division.html
Great Posts
Looks like you have the idea. Let's see more posts. I will officially start considering these for grading purposes on Monday. Review the course outine for how I will be grading this activity. If you are not listed as a contributer email me in the course site ASAP.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Skype Founders File Copyright Suit Against eBay
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/technology/companies/17skype.html
This article I found is appropriate because these are modern everyday programs people use, Skype and eBay. Im not exactly sure about why the companies are in the situation because the article is a little confusing. It is, although, about copyright violations. So if anyone who reads the article can explain it better that would be awesome.
cyber jurisdiction
I was following the discussion on cyber jurisdiction and found a rather helpful interesting site the link is below for those interested.
http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/kesan/index.html
http://www.cyberspacelaw.org/kesan/index.html
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Zippo; Sliding Scale Test pg24
http://gabar.org/public/pdf/GBJ/june06.pdf
Rising concern as internet is viewed from nearly every juststiction. Is a business active or passive in use of the internet through their web site. As a person who purchases frequently on the interent through various sites. I find this interesting and confusing. This is about a company Zippo (not related to the lighter Zippo) advertising & conducting business in PA. Zippo Manufacturing the lighter company in a case against Zippo Dot Com using the domain name Zippo.com.
Rising concern as internet is viewed from nearly every juststiction. Is a business active or passive in use of the internet through their web site. As a person who purchases frequently on the interent through various sites. I find this interesting and confusing. This is about a company Zippo (not related to the lighter Zippo) advertising & conducting business in PA. Zippo Manufacturing the lighter company in a case against Zippo Dot Com using the domain name Zippo.com.
Ethics is Always a Great Conversation Piece
So I did the discussions and they prove to be a great study tool and really make you think. One of these discussions was on ethics and if a woman who was spreading very nasty rumors about owners of an inn and was sued for defimation of character. She was very obviously being unethical. I was reminded of this discussion when i stumbled on an article this week on Foxnews.com. Four officials of the Mongolia boxing team were expelled from the world boxing championships Thursday for allegedly trying to bribe a referee with a watch. Basically in the code of ethics for the boxing association the teams are permitted to give gifts but only in a certain demeaner and the way way they gave the ref his gift lead one to believe it was a bride of sourts. The link is below for those interested. I find the thin line between "right and wrong" to be quite interesting in certain situations.... I dont know a lot about boxing so im not sure wether I feel these guys deserve to be expelled or not. Im deffintely interested to hear the classes opinions on this articl/topic.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Sep10/0,4670,BOXWorldsBribe,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Sep10/0,4670,BOXWorldsBribe,00.html
Credit Card Act
http://www.martindale.com/banking-law/article_Frost-Brown-Todd-LLC_795478.htm
I found this article interesting due to the fact I am a holder of 2 credit cards myself. This article is about one of three phases credit card companies need to change. This article states that they need to make notifications more in advanced, and as a credit card holder I do agree. The need to send bills out sooner and notify the card holder 45 days prior to any rate changes opposed to the 15 days, as they so now. Phase 2 and 3 will be in effect in February and October of 2010.
Cashless in Manhattan: But is it Legal?
I read an article in the Wall Street Journal where a restaurant in Manhattan adopted a credit-card only policy. The owner of the restaurant would no longer accept cash stating, "the convenience and security afforded by going cashless are well worth the added cost of the transaction fees imposed by card-issuing banks." Of course, a legal question has arised. The article refers to Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, which states, "US coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or organization must accept currency or coins for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.
Monday, September 14, 2009
BUCKS STUDENTS, ALUMNI FOR NETWORKING GROUP FOR PARALEGALS
I found an article called "Bucks Students, alumni for Networking Group for Paralegals", by Tracy Timby, published in Lower Southampton Spirit Newspapers, Inc;, on September 4, 2209.The article was really interesting, which show you us the demand of paralegals and legals assistants in the job market. It's a wonderful opportunity that students have to be involved in this particular career because they will find different resources to get experience and besides a lot of door will open for them in the market.
Francis A. Seybold
Francis A. Seybold
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)