Archive for ‘Substantive Law: Foreign Law’
Glen Greenwald on Salon has a thrice-updated story on the U.S. Department of Justice’s attempt to obtain from Twitter as much information as possible about a number of people associated with Wikileaks. On December 14, 2010 a U.S. Magistrate Judge made a sealed order requiring Twitter to divulge:
. . . [more]
A. The following customer or subscriber account infomation for each account registered to or associated with Wikilcaks; rop_g; ioerror; birgittaj; Julian Assange; Bradley Manning; Rop Gongrijp; Birgitta Jonsdottir for the time period November l, 2009 to present:
1. subscriber names, user names, screen names, or other identities;
2. mailing addresses, residential addresses,
A year ago, when the Libel Reform Campaign was launched only the Liberal Democrats strongly endorsed the need for change.
Now the Rt. Hon. Nick Clegg, as Deputy Prime Minister will announce a major reform project on Friday, which we’ll link to as soon as it is released. . . . [more]
Louis reported earlier this month on the story of a US federal jury which awarded $2.5-million in punitive damages and $90,000 in actual damages to each of two law professors who said that Thomson West had put their names on an annual supplement to a leading Pennsylvania practitioners’ text, even though they had refused to update the supplement when their pay was unilaterally halved.
Surprise to no-one – Thomson West will be back in court next month seeking an injunction to restrain what they say is prejudicial publicity – and we suspect, saying that the punitives are excessive.
We . . . [more]
My mother used to say something to the effect that “gentlefolk do not read each others’ mail.” Of course, she didn’t reckon with spies or spouses in distress. It comes as no surprise to me, a one-time family law prof, that, as the Huffington Post reported yesterday, a Michigan man at odds with his wife got hold of her password and read her emails in order to confirm her affair. Very much a “dog bites man” story, you’d think.
Not so, apparently — thanks to prosecutor Jessica Cooper, who has charged the husband with “felony computer misuse,” which has a . . . [more]
Okay a seasonal quiz question – in which work of art do a law library and a complex question of estate litigation feature prominently?
Okay – a big hint. It’s opera. . . . [more]
Most people are too busy shopping during the holidays to be worried about filing suits. Unless, maybe, you’re a celebrity.
Stephen Baldwin filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against Kevin Costner, not for any work they had done together in the entertainment industry, but for Baldwin’s investments in Costner’s company, Costner in Nevada Corporation (CNIC).
Baldwin claims he met Costner in April and decided to become a 10% partner in an invention backed by CNIC which could separate oil from water. With the backdrop of the April 20, 2010 BP oil spill, it seemed like a good venture. Interestingly . . . [more]
And now a post from snowbound London.
During the bail hearing of Julian Assange, the presiding magistrate, District Judge Howard Riddle, gave permission for journalists in attendance to use live blogging technology in reporting proceedings. In doing so, in the interests of practicality, he waltzed past provisions in the Contempt of Court Act 1981, which prohibited the use of recording media in court. It spurred a debate in England about the appropriate limits.
England’s top judge, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge (that’s a great name!) has complained that “impenetrable” criminal justice legislation is causing major delays in British trials.
The remarks are contained in the most recent annual report of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
In his introduction, Lord Judge writes:
. . . [more]
“It has been another year of unremitting commitment to the administration of criminal justice. That is as it should be. What remains less tolerable is the continuing burden of comprehending and applying impenetrable legislation, primarily but not exclusively in relation to sentencing. The search for the legislative intention in the
Yesterday’s United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit finding that e-mail held by a service provider cannot be accessed without a warrant has already been much discussed. For good American commentary, see blog posts by Professors Paul Ohm and Orin Kerr and the Electronic Frontier Federation’s news release. This is a short note to identify the links with our recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Gomboc.