#application of commercial courts act

[advocatechenoyceil]

Application of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in West Bengal

Application of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in West Bengal reflects a concerted effort to modernize India’s legal framework for commercial dispute resolution. Continue reading Application of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in West Bengal

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Privacy first

The internet is embroiled in a vicious polycrisis: child safety, surveillance, discrimination, disinformation, polarization, monopoly, journalism collapse – not only have we failed to agree on what to do about these, there's not even a consensus that all of these are problems.

But in a new whitepaper, my EFF colleagues Corynne McSherry, Mario Trujillo, Cindy Cohn and Thorin Klosowski advance an exciting proposal that slices cleanly through this Gordian knot, which they call "Privacy First":

https://www.eff.org/wp/privacy-first-better-way-address-online-harms

Here's the "Privacy First" pitch: whatever is going on with all of the problems of the internet, all of these problems are made worse by commercial surveillance.

Worried your kid is being made miserable through targeted ads? No surveillance, no targeting.

Worried your uncle was turned into a Qanon by targeted disinformation? No surveillance, no targeting. Worried that racialized people are being targeted for discriminatory hiring or lending by algorithms? No surveillance, no targeting.

Worried that nation-state actors are exploiting surveillance data to attack elections, politicians, or civil servants? No surveillance, no surveillance data.

Worried that AI is being trained on your personal data? No surveillance, no training data.

Worried that the news is being killed by monopolists who exploit the advantage conferred by surveillance ads to cream 51% off every ad-dollar? No surveillance, no surveillance ads.

Worried that social media giants maintain their monopolies by filling up commercial moats with surveillance data? No surveillance, no surveillance moat.

The fact that commercial surveillance hurts so many groups of people in so many ways is terrible, of course, but it's also an amazing opportunity. Thus far, the individual constituencies for, say, saving the news or protecting kids have not been sufficient to change the way these big platforms work. But when you add up all the groups whose most urgent cause would be significantly improved by comprehensive federal privacy law, vigorously enforced, you get an unstoppable coalition.

America is decades behind on privacy. The last really big, broadly applicable privacy law we passed was a law banning video-store clerks from leaking your porn-rental habits to the press (Congress was worried about their own rental histories after a Supreme Court nominee's movie habits were published in the Washington City Paper):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act

In the decades since, we've gotten laws that poke around the edges of privacy, like HIPAA (for health) and COPPA (data on under-13s). Both laws are riddled with loopholes and neither is vigorously enforced:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/09/how-to-make-a-child-safe-tiktok/

Privacy First starts with the idea of passing a fit-for-purpose, 21st century privacy law with real enforcement teeth (a private right of action, which lets contingency lawyers sue on your behalf for a share of the winnings):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/americans-deserve-more-current-american-data-privacy-protection-act

Here's what should be in that law:

A ban on surveillance advertising:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/03/ban-online-behavioral-advertising

Data minimization: a prohibition on collecting or processing your data beyond what is strictly necessary to deliver the service you're seeking.

Strong opt-in: None of the consent theater click-throughs we suffer through today. If you don't give informed, voluntary, specific opt-in consent, the service can't collect your data. Ignoring a cookie click-through is not consent, so you can just bypass popups and know you won't be spied on.

No preemption. The commercial surveillance industry hates strong state privacy laws like the Illinois biometrics law, and they are hoping that a federal law will pre-empt all those state laws. Federal privacy law should be the floor on privacy nationwide – not the ceiling:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/07/federal-preemption-state-privacy-law-hurts-everyone

No arbitration. Your right to sue for violations of your privacy shouldn't be waivable in a clickthrough agreement:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/04/stop-forced-arbitration-data-privacy-legislation

No "pay for privacy." Privacy is not a luxury good. Everyone deserves privacy, and the people who can least afford to buy private alternatives are most vulnerable to privacy abuses:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/10/why-getting-paid-your-data-bad-deal

No tricks. Getting "consent" with confusing UIs and tiny fine print doesn't count:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/designing-welcome-mats-invite-user-privacy-0

A Privacy First approach doesn't merely help all the people harmed by surveillance, it also prevents the collateral damage that today's leading proposals create. For example, laws requiring services to force their users to prove their age ("to protect the kids") are a privacy nightmare. They're also unconstitutional and keep getting struck down.

A better way to improve the kid safety of the internet is to ban surveillance. A surveillance ban doesn't have the foreseeable abuses of a law like KOSA (the Kids Online Safety Act), like bans on information about trans healthcare, medication abortions, or banned books:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/kids-online-safety-act-still-huge-danger-our-rights-online

When it comes to the news, banning surveillance advertising would pave the way for a shift to contextual ads (ads based on what you're looking at, not who you are). That switch would change the balance of power between news organizations and tech platforms – no media company will ever know as much about their readers as Google or Facebook do, but no tech company will ever know as much about a news outlet's content as the publisher does:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

This is a much better approach than the profit-sharing arrangements that are being trialed in Australia, Canada and France (these are sometimes called "News Bargaining Codes" or "Link Taxes"). Funding the news by guaranteeing it a share of Big Tech's profits makes the news into partisans for that profit – not the Big Tech watchdogs we need them to be. When Torstar, Canada's largest news publisher, struck a profit-sharing deal with Google, they killed their longrunning, excellent investigative "Defanging Big Tech" series.

A privacy law would also protect access to healthcare, especially in the post-Roe era, when Big Tech surveillance data is being used to target people who visit abortion clinics or secure medication abortions. It would end the practice of employers forcing workers to wear health-monitoring gadget. This is characterized as a "voluntary" way to get a "discount" on health insurance – but in practice, it's a way of punishing workers who refuse to let their bosses know about their sleep, fertility, and movements.

A privacy law would protect marginalized people from all kinds of digital discrimination, from unfair hiring to unfair lending to unfair renting. The commercial surveillance industry shovels endless quantities of our personal information into the furnaces that fuel these practices. A privacy law shuts off the fuel supply:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/04/digital-privacy-legislation-civil-rights-legislation

There are plenty of ways that AI will make our lives worse, but copyright won't fix it. For issues of labor exploitation (especially by creative workers), the answer lies in labor law:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

And for many of AI's other harms, a muscular privacy law would starve AI of some of its most potentially toxic training data:

https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-updated-terms-to-use-customer-data-to-train-ai-2023-9

Meanwhile, if you're worried about foreign governments targeting Americans – officials, military, or just plain folks – a privacy law would cut off one of their most prolific and damaging source of information. All those lawmakers trying to ban Tiktok because it's a surveillance tool? What about banning surveillance, instead?

Monopolies and surveillance go together like peanut butter and chocolate. Some of the biggest tech empires were built on mountains of nonconsensually harvested private data – and they use that data to defend their monopolies. Legal privacy guarantees are a necessary precursor to data portability and interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/wp/interoperability-and-privacy

Once we are guaranteed a right to privacy, lawmakers and regulators can order tech giants to tear down their walled gardens, rather than relying on tech companies to (selectively) defend our privacy:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/14/luxury-surveillance/#liar-liar

The point here isn't that privacy fixes all the internet's woes. The policy is "privacy first," not "just privacy." When it comes to making a new, good internet, there's plenty of room for labor law, civil rights legislation, antitrust, and other legal regimes. But privacy has the biggest constituency, gets us the most bang for the buck, and has the fewest harmful side-effects. It's a policy we can all agree on, even if we don't agree on much else. It's a coalition in potentia that would be unstoppable in reality. Privacy first! Then – everything else!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/06/privacy-first/#but-not-just-privacy

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[coochiequeens]

Men 60 and over are purchasing g babies through surrogacy yet the average life span of men in England is 78.8 years. What plans do they have in place if they die before the babies are legally adults?

By Sanchez Manning 14 September 2024

Almost 300 men aged over 50 have applied to become the legal father of a surrogate child over the past five years – and 43 of them are over 60, new figures reveal.

And a total of 95 single men applied to become a parent, reflecting a growing trend in men, especially older men, having babies alone with the help of surrogates.

Since the law changed in 2019 to give single people the same surrogacy rights as couple, there have been 2,162 applications from intended parents in England. 

A total of 293 would-be fathers are over 50, both solo and in couples, according to figures released following a Freedom of Information Act application from The Mail on Sunday.

Older women turning to surrogacy has already sparked debate, with high-profile figures such as Naomi Campbell using a surrogate to have children in their 50s.

And in June, a 72-year-old man was granted permission in Scotland to become the legal father of a three-year-old boy, born to a surrogate, despite the death of his wife.

Commenting on the new figures from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, fertility and family law expert Louisa Ghevaert said: ‘The numbers of single men and men over 50 applying for parental orders reflects wider trends in solo and later-life parenting that are set to continue.’

She added that the numbers also reflected ‘the fact there’s no legal upper age limit for a parental order’.

However, the latest disclosure has caused anger among some campaigners. Helen Gibson, of Surrogacy Concern, said: ‘We are appalled to see such high numbers of single men and older men pursuing surrogacy, often abroad and in commercial arrangements which are banned in the UK. This is a worrying trend in which mothers are erased from the lives of their children.’

But Alan White, of Surrogacy UK, said: ‘As a society, perhaps we’re more used to considering maternal instinct than we are paternal instinct, but the desire to become a parent can be strong whether you’re a man or a woman.’

The UK ranks as one of the worst countries to bring up twins and triplets, a shocking report has revealed.

Research from the Twins Trust found parents of such children are at least £20,000 worse off in the first year after birth, compared with those who have had two babies in succession.

In a ranking of developed nations that looked at financial help such as maternity pay, mental health support and childcare provision, the UK came 23rd out of 27.

Shauna Leven, chief executive of the Twins Trust, said: ‘This report lays bare the grim reality facing families with multiples – the financial burden, mental health toll and lack of support.’

The charity is calling on the Government to change maternity pay so it is paid per baby instead of per mother.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

You're analysis are always very insightful! Your considerations about Malleus' restricted options in terms of partners made me wonder if Kalim would end up in a similar situation as him. This is of course entirely speculation, since we don't know much about how his parents got together, but to me it makes sense that in the future he might have to deal with something like an arranged marriage. He isn't royalty, but the Asim family still has a great deal of commercial and political sway in the Scalding Sands, so it's difficult for me to believe that they would just let the heir marry whoever he chooses. And despite how carefree he may act, I don't think he would reject an arrangement made by his family. He seems pretty aware of all the obligations that come with being an heir to the Asim. Besides, rejecting a spouse that was chosen for him might put said person under a lot of public scrutiny, and I don't think he would want anyone to go through that

[Referencing this post!]

Oh, hmmm 🤔 I actually never really though about this kind of thing for Kalim so I guess now is as good of a time as any www.

I do think like there would be some selectiveness involved for Kalim too, given the financial power and political influence in the Scalding Sands that the Asims hold (and that's not even mentioning their connections via family, some of which are royalty, and business partners). There's also been several attempts on Kalim's life, so there would probably be an intense screening and background check process for anyone courting Kalim. Who knows if they're actually there to kidnap him or to take his life??? The Asims would have very legitimate concerns, so they have every right to be vigilant and suspicious of those who may try to take advantage of Kalim's kind-heartedness and gullibility.

Mm, I do feel like (overall) Kalim wouldn't be in as much of a tight spot as Malleus?? I get the sense that his parents are way more open-minded and truly care about his happiness (unlike the Briar Valley senators) so they wouldn't exactly force him to marry someone he doesn't actually love. Rather than a "you have no say in this matter" arranged marriage, they might instead present Kalim with a pool of potential candidates that have already been vetted and encourage him to try them out? Like, go on various blind dates and see if he "clicks" with any of them. There would be more trial and error, more exploration allowed (since there isn't as much of a demand for Kalim to have an heir, especially not right away; he has so many other siblings and family members who could help or assume roles in the business). I believe this is similar to how matchmaking is done in some Asian countries (although I'm not too familiar with the concept, I've only learned a little about it through some podcasts). From my understanding, they try to "match" applicants with someone of a similar social ranking as you (so in Kalim's case, he would probably be meeting people who are also mega wealthy) and based on what you (and oftentimes your family) are looking for. If it doesn't work out, then there's less of a chance for backlash since pretty much anyone can use these services and a perfect match isn't a guarantee, especially on the first attempt. Please feel free to correct me if I got any information here wrong!! ^^

[she-is-ovarit]

Ashli Streeter said Stevens Transport did not hire her because it had no women to train her. Credit...Montinique Monroe for The New York Times

The trucking industry has complained for years that there is a dire shortage of workers willing to drive big rigs. But some women say many trucking companies have made it effectively impossible for them to get those jobs. Trucking companies often refuse to hire women if the businesses do not have women available to train them. And because fewer than 5 percent of truck drivers in the United States are women, there are few female trainers to go around. The same-sex training policies are common across the industry, truckers and legal experts say, even though a federal judge ruled in 2014 that it was unlawful for a trucking company to require that female job candidates be paired only with female trainers. Ashli Streeter of Killeen, Texas, said she had borrowed $7,000 to attend a truck driving school and earn her commercial driving license in hopes of landing a job that would pay more than the warehouse work she had done. But she said Stevens Transport, a Dallas-based company, had told her that she couldn’t be hired because the business had no women to train her. Other trucking companies turned her down for the same reason. “I got licensed, and I clearly could drive,” Ms. Streeter said. “It was disheartening.” Ms. Streeter and two other women filed a complaint against Stevens Transport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday, contending that the company’s same-sex training policy unfairly denied them driving jobs. The commission investigates allegations made against employers, and, if it determines a violation has occurred, it may bring its own lawsuit. The commission had brought the lawsuit that resulted in the 2014 federal court decision against similar policies at another trucking company, Prime. Critics of the industry said the persistence of same-sex training nearly a decade after that ruling, which did not set national legal precedent, was evidence that trucking companies had not done enough to hire women who could help solve their labor woes. “It’s frustrating to see that we have not evolved at all,” said Desiree Wood, a trucker who is the president and founder of Real Women in Trucking, a nonprofit. Ms. Wood’s group is joining the three women in their E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, which was filed by Peter Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer in Washington, and the National Women’s Law Center. Companies that insist on using women to train female applicants generally do so because they want to avoid claims of sexual harassment. Trainers typically spend weeks alone with trainees on the road, where the two often have to sleep in the same cab. Critics of same-sex training acknowledge that sexual harassment is a problem, but they say trucking companies should address it with better vetting and anti-harassment programs. Employers could reduce the risk of harassment by paying for trainees to sleep in a hotel room, which some companies already do. Women made up 4.8 percent of the 1.37 million truck drivers in the United States in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics, up from 4 percent a decade earlier. Long-haul truck driving can be a demanding job. Drivers are away from home for days. Yet some women say they are attracted to it because it can pay around $50,000 a year, with experienced drivers making a lot more. Truck driving generally pays more than many other jobs that don’t require a college degree, including those in retail stores, warehouses or child care centers.

The infrastructure act of 2021 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to set up an advisory board to support women pursuing trucking careers and identify practices that keep women out of the profession. Robin Hutcheson, the administrator of the agency, said requiring same-sex training would appear to be a barrier to entry. “If that is happening, that would be something that we would want to take a look at,” she said in an interview. Ms. Streeter, a mother of three, said she had applied to Stevens because it hired people straight out of trucking school. She told Stevens representatives that she was willing to be trained by a man, but to no avail. Bruce Dean, general counsel at Stevens, denied the allegations in the suit. “The fundamental premise in the charge — that Stevens Transport Inc. only allows women trainers to train women trainees — is false,” he said in a statement, adding that the company “has had a cross-gender training program, where both men and women trainers train female trainees, for decades.” Some legal experts said that, although same-sex training was ruled unlawful in only one federal court, trucking companies would struggle to defend such policies before other judges. Under federal employment discrimination law, employers can seek special legal exemptions to treat women differently from men, but courts have granted them very rarely. “Basically, what the law says is that a company needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Deborah Brake, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in employment and gender law. “They need to be able to give women equal employment opportunities and prevent and remedy sexual harassment.” Ms. Streeter said she had made meager earnings from infrequent truck driving gigs while hoping to get a position at Stevens. Later this month, she will become a driver in the trucking fleet of a large retailer. Kim Howard, one of the other women who filed the E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, said she was attracted to truck driving by the prospect of a steady wage after working for decades as an actor in New York. “It was very much a blow,” she said of being rejected because of the training policy. “I honestly don’t know how I financially made it through.” Ms. Howard, who is now employed at another trucking company, said she had worked briefly at a company where she was trained by two men who treated her well. “It’s quite possible for a woman to be trained by a man, and a man to be a professional about what the job is,” she said. Other female drivers said they had been mistreated by male trainers who could be relentlessly dismissive and sometimes refused to teach them important skills, like reversing a truck with a large trailer attached. Rowan Kannard, a truck driver from Wisconsin who is not involved in the complaint against Stevens, said a male trainer had spent little time training her on a run to California in 2019. At a truck stop where she felt unsafe, Ms. Kannard said, the trainer demanded that she leave the cab — and then locked her out. She asked to stop the training and was flown back to Wisconsin. Yet she said she did not believe that same-sex training for women was necessary. “Some of these men that are training, they should probably go through a course.” Click the article to read more. The author is Peter Eavis.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Judd Legum at Popular Information:

Black women make up about 8% of the population in the United States. But, according to a report by Project Diane, firms founded by Black women received 0.0006% of total funding from venture capitalists between 2009 and 2017. In recent years, the amount of venture capital funding awarded to firms founded by Black women has remained far less than 1%. Further, a study by Palladium Impact Capital found that "Black women entrepreneurs in the United States suffer the largest gap between their total capital demand and the amount of investment capital they receive when compared to other demographic groups."   Nevertheless, some people believe that in the status quo, Black women are receiving too much venture capital. They argue that Black women are benefiting from illegal racial preferences. And they are suing to put an end to it. The focus of the litigation is the Fearless Fund, which runs the Strivers Grant Contest, a program that awards $20,000 to four small businesses that are majority-owned by Black women. A group called The American Alliance for Equal Rights (AAER) sued the Fearless Fund, arguing the grant contest constituted illegal racial discrimination. 

AAER bills itself as "a nonprofit membership organization dedicated to challenging distinctions made on the basis of race and ethnicity in federal and state courts." In practice, it files lawsuits on behalf of aggrieved white people who believe they are being harmed by programs designed to benefit racial minorities that face widespread discrimination. Edward Blum, the president of AAER, told the New York Times in 2023 that "systemic racism" does not exist. Blum also rejected the idea that "racism" was part of the country at its founding. AAER's most famous legal victory was a successful lawsuit arguing that "race-conscious student admissions policies used by Harvard University and the University of North Carolina" were unlawful. In the Fearless Fund lawsuit, AAER argued that the Fearless Fund's grant "violates section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race when enforcing contracts." That law was originally "intended to protect formerly enslaved people from economic exclusion," but is now being turned on its head by AAER. 

This week, a federal appeals court handed a victory to AAER. In a 2-1 decision, a panel found AAER was likely to succeed on the merits and issued an injunction suspending the Fearless Fund's grant program. The decision was written by two judges appointed by former President Trump.  Blum celebrated the decision while waiving away concerns about the systemic exclusion of Black women from venture capital funding. "Our nation’s civil rights laws do not permit racial distinctions because some groups are overrepresented in various endeavors, while others are under-represented," Blum said. 

The real meaning of civil rights law

Do civil rights laws really prohibit initiatives like the Fearless Fund's grants to businesses owned by Black women? Other courts have rejected challenges to similar programs. In November 2023, America First Legal (AFL) — an organization run by Trump advisor Stephen Miller — sued Progressive Insurance on behalf of a white business owner to stop a program that awarded $25,000 grants to black-owned small businesses. The money could be used toward the purchase of a commercial vehicle. The white business owner represented by AFL claimed he began filling out the application before realizing it was limited to Black-owned businesses.

The 3-judge panel on the 11th Circuit ruling against Fearless Fund is a victory for the right-wing White grievance industry and a loss for Black women.

See Also:

CNN: Federal appeals court blocks Fearless Fund from issuing grants to only Black women

[alexmercer786]

Coworking Office Space -The growing trend of managed office spaces in Bangalore

In the past, only enterprise proprietors who can pay massive rents work from the conventional workplaces. Most small enterprise proprietors work from home as they could’t manage to pay for to pay large rents. Even even though they need to have the separation between training office space in Bangalore enterprise and private existence, there has been no right answer that comes at inexpensive rents. Coworking office space has been introduced up to address this hassle and it has even caused the revolution within the running fashion of enterprise proprietors.

Many realtors and property proprietors have realized the commercial enterprise capacity in the coworking industry ensuing inside the leasing of millions of sq.Toes’s of land in India for the coworking offices. Moreover, there may be a large upward push inside the wide variety of humans operating from those because of the kids of India moving in the direction of entrepreneurship.

There is a big increase in demand for those shared places of work because of the following factors:

1.Coworking Culture:

Coworking spaces have a completely unique way of life which differentiates them from the ordinary business office spaces in Bangalore. Especially for startups, this is a useful environment as they could get more innovative thoughts by means of interacting with numerous kinds of enterprise people.

Any enterprise owner can collaborate to thrive of their very own business. These act as a platform to learn exceptional matters from specific elderly specialists. Moreover, with many like-minded enterprise owners running around, you could improve your productivity. This tradition caused the evolution of the working style inside the current world.

Moreover, this sort of favorable running surroundings of the shared areas has even impacted the big manufacturers to remember switching their business operations from conventional to these workspaces.

2.Quality Working Furniture:

As a enterprise proprietor, you want to invest in arranging all of the fixtures operations consisting of tables, chairs, desks, and many others required in your enterprise when you lease a traditional workplace space. But whilst you be part of these workspaces, all the fixtures necessities are taken care of by means of the gap carriers.

This way you need no longer have enough money one of these fees saving your cash. Moreover, all the exact agencies offer top fine furniture for your commercial enterprise without any additional charge for the use of them.

3.Additional Facilities and Services: Many correct co-working spaces offer unique facilities which include meeting rooms, conference rooms, etc. You need to pay for these while you hire a traditional area as according to the condo agreements despite the fact that you use them very not often. But in shared spaces, you could e book one every time you want and cancel them as in keeping with your desires with the pay for use foundation saving your cash.

4. Affordable Memberships: The memberships of the co working spaces are pretty low cost relying for your needs. For example, a devoted personal cabin will certainly cost you higher than the new desk however the expenses are cheaper whilst in comparison with prices you want to incur for rents, application bills, and so forth which you want to have enough money within the case of conventional areas.

Conclusion:

Joining in a coworking space is the quality desire to your business operations at less costly prices. The subculture, centers, and versatility offered by means of those cause them to easy to hire for a brief time period basis. Moreover, each member can get get entry to to important facilities which includes the parking areas, food courts, and many others furnished for the individuals at no additional charges.

[kanakkupillai-trademark]

How to Protect Your Work with Copyright in Coimbatore

Copyright registration in Coimbatore is essential for creators looking to protect their intellectual property rights. In Coimbatore, a city known for its thriving textile industry, educational institutions, and cultural diversity, copyright registration ensures that authors, artists, musicians, and other creators can safeguard their works and benefit from their creative endeavours. This article outlines the importance of copyright registration, the process involved, and the benefits it offers to creators in Coimbatore.

Understanding Copyright

Copyright is a legal right granted to creators of original works, including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, films, sound recordings, and broadcasts. It gives the creator the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display their work. In India, copyright is governed by the Copyright Act 1957 and administered by the Copyright Office under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Importance of Copyright Registration

Although copyright protection is automatic upon the creation of a work, registration provides several key advantages:

Legal Proof of Ownership: Registration serves as prima facie evidence in a court of law, proving the creator's ownership of the work.

Public Record: It creates a public record of the work, which can help deter potential infringers.

Eligibility for Statutory Damages: In case of infringement, registered works are eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees, which unregistered works are not.

International Protection: Registration can facilitate the protection of work internationally under various copyright treaties and agreements.

The Copyright Registration Process in Coimbatore

1. Preparation of the Application

The first step is to prepare the application for copyright registration. This involves:

Completing the Application Form: The applicant must complete the appropriate form (Form IV) available on the Copyright Office’s website. Each form is for a different type of work.

Providing Copies of the Work: Depending on the nature of the work, copies may need to be submitted. For instance, literary works require two copies of the manuscript.

Supporting Documents: Any other relevant documents, such as proof of ownership, must be attached.

2. Submission of the Application

The completed application, the required documents, and the fee must be submitted to the Copyright Office. The application can be filed online through the e-filing system on the Copyright Office’s website, or it can be submitted in person or by post to the Copyright Office.

3. Examination Process

After submission, the application undergoes an examination process:

Scrutiny: The Copyright Office scrutinizes the application to ensure all necessary documents and information have been provided.

Objections and Discrepancies: If any objections or discrepancies are found, the applicant is notified and given an opportunity to address them.

4. Registration and Certification

Once the examination is complete and any objections have been resolved, the Copyright Office registers the work and issues a certificate of registration. The details of the work are then entered into the Register of Copyrights.

Benefits of Copyright Registration in Coimbatore

1. Protection and Enforcement

Registered copyright helps creators enforce their rights and take legal action against unauthorized use or infringement. This is particularly important in Coimbatore, a city with a growing creative industry, including literature, music, and digital content.

2. Commercial Exploitation

With registered copyright, creators can license their work to others, opening up opportunities for commercial exploitation. This can include selling rights, creating adaptations, or collaborating with other artists and businesses.

3. Cultural Preservation

Coimbatore's rich cultural heritage is preserved through the protection of artistic works. Copyright registration ensures that traditional and contemporary works are documented and safeguarded for future generations.

4. International Reach

For creators aiming to reach an international audience, copyright registration provides a foundation for protecting their work globally. It simplifies the process of securing rights in other countries, facilitating cross-border collaborations and distribution.

Conclusion

Copyright registration in Coimbatore is a vital tool for protecting creators' intellectual property. It provides legal benefits and fosters a supportive environment for creativity and innovation. By understanding and utilizing the copyright registration process, creators in Coimbatore can ensure their works are protected, preserved, and valued both locally and internationally.

[lawforeverything]

Arbitration agreement meaning

Arbitration agreements are legally binding contracts where two parties agree to resolve any disputes through arbitration instead of litigation. Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process where an arbitrator, instead of a judge or jury, reviews evidence and arguments from both sides and issues a final and binding decision.

Considerations When Drafting Arbitration Agreements

When drafting an arbitration agreement, parties should carefully consider:

Scope – Specify what types of disputes will be resolved through arbitration. Narrowly tailor the scope to meet the parties’ needs.

Applicable law – Choose which laws and jurisdiction will govern the agreement and any arbitration proceedings. This provides guidance to the arbitrator.

Arbitrator selection – Include a method for choosing a qualified arbitrator acceptable to both parties. If not specified, arbitration organizations will select the arbitrator.

Arbitration rules – Adopt established rules from organizations like the American Arbitration Association or JAMS to ensure fair procedures are followed. Rules cover aspects like discovery, evidence, and appeals.

Enforceability – Consult an attorney to draft an agreement that will be legally enforceable in the relevant jurisdictions. Requirements vary in different areas.

Costs – Allocate or specify a method for allocating any fees charged by the arbitration organization and arbitrator. Fees can often exceed the cost of litigation.

Severability – Include a severability clause so if any part of the agreement is found legally invalid or unenforceable, the remaining parts will remain in effect.

Arbitration agreements provide an efficient alternative to settling disputes through litigation. However, they also limit parties’ access to the court system and right to trial. With careful drafting, arbitration agreements can be useful tools for managing business and legal risks.

The History and Evolution of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration agreements have been used for centuries as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Modern arbitration agreements find their origins in England, where merchants used them to resolve commercial disputes without resorting to slow and expensive litigation. These early agreements set the foundation for today’s sophisticated arbitration processes.

The Rise of Institutional Arbitration

In the early 1900s, arbitration agreements became more widely used in the United States. The American Arbitration Association (AAA) was founded in 1926 to provide administrative services for arbitrations. The AAA helped popularize arbitration by offering standardized rules and procedures for resolving disputes.

Other arbitration institutions formed around the world, such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) in 1892 and the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Court of Arbitration in 1923. These institutions established rules and oversight for international arbitrations between private parties.

The Federal Arbitration Act

In 1925, the United States Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) to validate arbitration agreements in contracts involving interstate commerce. The FAA made arbitration agreements legally enforceable and established a framework for the arbitration process in federal courts. This legislation was instrumental in establishing arbitration as a mainstream means for resolving legal disputes in the U.S.

Proliferation of Arbitration Clauses

In recent decades, arbitration clauses have become ubiquitous in consumer and employment contracts. Companies frequently require individuals to agree to arbitration instead of litigation to resolve disputes. While increasing the use of arbitration, this trend has also generated controversy regarding fairness and due process. There have been legislative and judicial efforts to limit the use of mandatory arbitration clauses, especially in employment and consumer settings.

Overall, arbitration agreements have evolved from a niche process used primarily in business deals to a widespread mechanism for resolving all types of legal disputes, for better or for worse. They continue to adapt to changes in technology, commerce, and society. The history of arbitration agreements is still unfolding.

The Pros and Cons of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration agreements offer both advantages and disadvantages to consider before entering into one.

Pros of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration is often faster and less expensive than litigation. Arbitrators can typically schedule hearings and issue decisions more quickly than courts. Arbitration also usually involves lower costs since the process is more streamlined.

Arbitration offers a confidential and private process. Unlike court proceedings, arbitration hearings and decisions are not public record. This can help parties avoid unwanted publicity.

Arbitration provides flexibility and control. Parties can choose the arbitrator(s), location of hearings, governing rules, and other specifics. They can customize the process to suit their unique needs.

Read Full Blog 👇 :

[rehasaleh]

Hiring a Lawyer in Qatar: A Comprehensive Guide

Hiring a lawyer in Qatar is crucial in many legal situations, whether they involve civil, commercial, criminal, or family matters. Choosing the right lawyer and authorizing them to act on your behalf requires a good understanding of Qatari laws and procedures.

Why might you need to hire a lawyer in Qatar?

There are many reasons why you might need to hire a lawyer in Qatar, including:

Complexity of legal procedures: Legal procedures in Qatar are highly complex, especially in commercial and real estate cases.

Need for specialized legal expertise: Some cases may require specialized legal knowledge in areas such as corporations, taxes, or intellectual property.

Saving time and effort: Hiring a lawyer allows you to save the time and effort that would be required to handle the case yourself.

Effective legal representation: Having a lawyer ensures effective legal representation and protection of your interests.

Read More: Family consultations Qatar

How to choose a lawyer in Qatar

When choosing a lawyer in Qatar, you should consider several factors:

Specialization: Ensure that the lawyer specializes in the type of legal case you have.

Experience: Look for a lawyer with extensive experience in their field.

Reputation: Inquire about the lawyer's reputation among colleagues and former clients.

Fees: Ask about the lawyer's fees and how they are calculated.

Communication: Make sure you feel comfortable communicating with the lawyer and understand their explanation of the case.

Read More: Divorce for harm under Qatari law

What are the procedures for hiring a lawyer?

The procedures for hiring a lawyer in Qatar are governed by the applicable laws and regulations. In general, these procedures include:

Contract with the lawyer: A contract is drawn up between you and the lawyer outlining the rights and obligations of each party.

Granting power of attorney: You grant the lawyer a special power of attorney authorizing them to undertake specific legal proceedings on your behalf.

Submitting the power of attorney to the court: The power of attorney is submitted to the court with jurisdiction over the case.

Read More: Divorce case for harm in Qatar

Important tips when hiring a lawyer

Research thoroughly: Before making your decision, conduct a thorough search for lawyers specializing in your case.

Ask for recommendations: Ask friends and acquaintances for any lawyers they can recommend.

Compare offers: Request quotes from several lawyers before making your final decision.

Read the contract carefully: Carefully read the contract before signing it and ensure you understand all of its terms.

Stay in touch: Maintain regular communication with your lawyer throughout the case.

Conclusion, Hiring a lawyer in Qatar is an important decision that requires careful planning. By following the tips mentioned above, you can choose the right lawyer and ensure you receive the effective legal representation you need.

[maranofamilylawyers]

What Does a Legal Advisor Do?

A legal adviser is an attorney who provides legal counsel and services to organisations. The job requires a bachelor’s degree, training and examinations like CLAT.

Our Sydney contested estate lawyers help clients fight for their share of an estate. They can also defend a client against criminal charges. Their work is often conducted pro bono.

Solicitor

A solicitor is a legal professional who Legal advisor Sydney in certain areas of law. They can help you with a range of legal matters, including criminal, commercial, and family law. They can also assist with property and employment law issues.

A qualified solicitor will have undergone undergraduate or postgraduate tertiary study and practical training to qualify for the legal profession. They must be admitted to the Australian Lawyers Roll before they can legally practice in Australia.

Zulekha has a strong interest in commercial, property and migration law. She has handled a variety of matters and has appeared in the Supreme Court of NSW on behalf of clients. She understands the importance of providing cost effective advice and resolving disputes in the quickest way possible. She also has a thorough understanding of the Australian legislative and regulatory regimes.

Barrister

Barristers are independent, specialist advocates trained to appear in a courtroom. They provide objective advice on particular legal problems for lawyers, solicitors, businesses and governments and also act as mediators or in alternative dispute resolution processes.

Most people seeking legal assistance will engage a solicitor who will determine whether or not the services of a barrister are needed. Solicitors have good working relationships with many barristers and are able to recommend the most suitable one for a case.

The firm Lyons Law has highly experienced criminal and civil lawyers that are able to deal with any type of legal case. Contact them for a free consultation. They are expert in building disputes and construction contracts. Their principal lawyer, John Dela Cruz has over a decade of experience as a legal practitioner and handles construction disputes for clients day in and out.

Corporate Lawyer

A corporate lawyer is an indispensable legal architect for businesses, navigating them through the legal complexities and safeguarding their interests. They handle a wide range of legal issues including contracts, intellectual property, and regulatory compliance. They also help companies structure their operations in a tax-efficient way.

A Sydney corporate lawyer from Open Legal will work with you to understand your business and determine the best course of action to protect your interests. They will also ensure that your company is in compliance with all applicable laws.

The typical career path for a corporate lawyer in Australia involves completing a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) or Juris Doctor (JD). Following this, they must undertake practical legal training before being admitted to practice law. They may specialise in a particular area of law or practice general commercial and corporate law.

Break and Enter Lawyer

The crime of break and enter is a serious one that can result in imprisonment. Having an experienced Sydney criminal defence lawyer is vital for defending yourself against this charge.

You may have a legal defence of duress if you were forced to commit the break and enter offence by someone else. You can also use a defence of necessity where you entered the property to protect yourself or someone else from harm or to prevent a crime being committed.

Our expert aggravated break and enter lawyers regularly attend court on these matters and will provide you with immediate, accurate and realistic advice in relation to any possible or likely defences available to you. We have a strong focus on getting your charges dropped or downgraded early and have a proven record of success.

Criminal Lawyer

If you or someone you know is facing criminal Family Lawyer Hurstville, the right lawyer can make all the difference between liberty and incarceration. A top Sydney criminal defence lawyer will have the experience, dedication and commitment to protect your rights and ensure that you get a fair outcome.

Kent specialises in defending serious and complex matters including indecent assault, acts of indecency, drug offences, proceeds of crime, burglary and fraud. He also regularly appears in Local Court matters, District and Supreme Court jury and judge-alone trials as well as appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal.

He is a fierce advocate for his clients, always giving honest and realistic advice. He ensures that each client receives his undivided commitment and attention to their case, as well as a high standard of professional representation in Court.

[shamisxgentile]

Effective Strategies for Dealing with Spam Text Messages

In an era where digital communication is paramount, the issue of spam text messages has become increasingly prevalent. These unwanted messages can be not only intrusive but also potentially harmful. This article provides a comprehensive guide to understanding and addressing spam text messages, including the role of spam text lawyers, how to report text message spam, and the services offered by a spam text attorney.

Understanding Spam Text Messages

Spam text messages are unsolicited communications sent to your mobile device, often for the purpose of advertising or phishing. These messages can range from harmless promotions to fraudulent schemes designed to steal personal information. Addressing the issue of spam texts requires both preventive measures and effective legal recourse.

Role of Spam Text Lawyers

When dealing with the legal aspects of spam text messages, the expertise of spam text lawyers is crucial. These professionals specialize in handling cases related to text message spam and can provide valuable assistance in the following areas:

Legal Advice: Offering guidance on the legal options available for addressing spam texts.

Case Representation: Representing clients in court to seek compensation for damages caused by spam texts.

Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that companies adhere to laws and regulations regarding text message communications.

How to Report Text Message Spam

Reporting text message spam is an essential step in mitigating the impact of unwanted messages. Here’s how you can effectively report text message spam:

Use Built-in Features: Most mobile devices have built-in features that allow you to report spam messages directly to your carrier. This helps in blocking the sender and preventing further messages.

Contact Your Carrier: Reach out to your mobile service provider to report the spam messages. They often have dedicated departments to handle such issues and can take action to block the sender.

File a Complaint with Regulatory Agencies: In many regions, you can file complaints with regulatory bodies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or equivalent organizations. These agencies investigate spam-related issues and can impose penalties on offenders.

Utilize Spam Reporting Apps: There are various apps available that can help you report and block spam messages. These apps often provide additional features such as message filtering and sender identification.

Seeking Help from a Spam Text Attorney

If you are experiencing significant issues due to spam text messages, consulting a spam text attorney may be necessary. Here’s how a spam text attorney can assist you:

Legal Consultation: Providing expert advice on whether you have a case and what legal actions can be taken.

Litigation Support: Handling legal proceedings if you decide to pursue a case against the sender or the responsible parties.

Compensation Claims: Assisting in filing claims for damages resulting from spam texts, including any financial losses or emotional distress.

Legal Framework for Spam Text Messages

Understanding the legal framework surrounding spam text message is crucial for both individuals and businesses. Key regulations include:

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA): In the United States, the TCPA restricts the use of automated systems to send unsolicited text messages. Violations of this act can result in substantial penalties.

General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): For entities operating in the European Union, GDPR governs the use of personal data, including how it is collected and used in text message marketing.

Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act: This act provides guidelines on commercial messages and the opt-out process, applicable to text messages in addition to email communications.

Preventive Measures Against Spam Texts

Implementing preventive measures can significantly reduce the number of spam texts you receive. Consider the following strategies:

Opt-Out of Marketing Lists: Ensure you are not inadvertently subscribed to marketing lists. Opt-out options are usually provided in marketing messages.

Use Spam Filters: Utilize spam filters available on your mobile device or through third-party applications to block unwanted messages.

Be Cautious with Personal Information: Avoid sharing your mobile number on unsecured websites or with unknown entities to minimize the risk of being targeted by spammers.

Case Studies of Successful Spam Text Management

Examining real-world cases can provide insights into effective strategies for managing spam text messages. Some notable examples include:

Corporate Lawsuits: Several companies have faced legal action for violating anti-spam regulations. These cases often result in significant settlements and changes in corporate practices.

Consumer Advocacy: Individuals have successfully sought compensation through legal channels for damages caused by spam texts. These cases highlight the importance of legal support and proper reporting mechanisms.

Future Trends in Spam Text Management

The landscape of spam text management is continuously evolving. Future trends to watch include:

Advancements in AI: Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies are being developed to enhance spam detection and prevention.

Increased Regulation: Governments may introduce stricter regulations to address the growing problem of spam messages and protect consumers.

Enhanced Consumer Tools: New tools and technologies are being designed to empower consumers with better control over spam text messages and their personal information.

Effectively dealing with spam text messages requires a multifaceted approach involving prevention, reporting, and legal recourse. By understanding the role of a spam text messages lawyer, knowing how to report the text message spam, and seeking assistance from a spam text attorney, individuals, and businesses can better manage and mitigate the impact of unwanted communications. Staying informed about legal frameworks and preventive measures will contribute to a safer and more secure digital communication environment.

[aalawsng]

Guidelines for Recapitalization of Banks and Other Financial Institutions

A little more understanding of the world of finance.

Here we break down the finance institutions by type with descriptions of each of their scopes of business.

CBN

In its bid to strengthen Nigerian banks against external and domestic shocks and enhance the stability of the financial system, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) has issued guidelines for the recapitalization of banks in Nigeria. The rationale behind this decision is to ensure that banks have a robust capital base to absorb unexpected losses and the capacity to contribute to the growth and development of the Nigerian economy.

The new capitalization requirements enforced on the banks are as follows:

Commercial Banks:

International operations: ₦500 billion minimum

National operations: ₦200 billion minimum

Regional operations: ₦50 billion minimum

2. Merchant Banks:

National operations: ₦50 billion

3. Non-interest Banks:

National operations: ₦20 billion

Regional operations: ₦10 billion

To learn more about the guidelines issued by CBN, click the link below.

CAC

Following the Central Bank of Nigeria's (CBN) Recapitalization Guidelines for Banks and Other Financial Institutions, the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), pursuant to its powers under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) No. 3 of 2020, has also issued the following guidelines to ensure a smooth recapitalization process:

New Incorporation Documentary and Other Requirements

Approved Name Reservation or Availability

Approval-in-Principle from Sector Regulator

Duly completed online incorporation form

Payment of stamp duty and filing fees for the category of license authorization

Note: The Certificate of incorporation shall be issued within 24 hours for applications that satisfy all requirements for incorporation of companies prescribed in the Commission's Operations Checklists available at www.cac.gov.ng/resources.

2. Increase in Share Capital (Options - private placements, rights issue, and/or offer for subscription) Documentary and Other Requirements

Duly signed company resolution

Return of allotment

Statutory declaration by directors verifying that the issued share capital is fully paid-up

Notice of the fact that regulatory approval is required

Affidavit deposed to by a company director to the effect that regulatory approval is required for the increase

Amended memorandum of association reflecting the new share capital

Payment of stamp duties and filing fees

Issuance of a letter acknowledging notice of increase and requirement of regulatory approval

Filing of regulatory approval

Issuance of certificate of increase

Note:

Notice of the fact that regulatory approval is required must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 127 (3), (4) & (5) of CAMA.

Annual returns and information on persons with significant control must be up-to-date.

A certificate of increase shall be issued within 24 hours of filing regulatory approval.

3. Merger Documentary and Other Requirements

Duly signed special resolution for merger by each of the merging companies

Scheme of Merger duly approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Certified true copy (CTC) of Court order authorizing Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of each of the merging companies

Evidence of publication of Court-ordered meeting in two newspapers and the Federal Gazette

CTC of Court order sanctioning the Scheme of Merger

Note: Annual returns and information on persons with significant control must be up-to-date.

4. Upgrade and Downgrade of License Authorization

No consequential filing is required.

Enquiries and Complaints

All enquiries and complaints regarding these guidelines and applications submitted in pursuance of the recapitalization exercise should be addressed to bankrecapitalization@cac.gov.ng

You could also direct enquiries to any of the following:

Lawfirm@aaLawsng.com

aaLawsng@gmail.com

By Omowonuola Alabi

[masterofd1saster]

CJ court watch - last cases Jun & Jul 24

SCt decided a tranche of important cases recently. The decisions were divided along familiar ideological lines.

Snyder v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024) held that gratuities paid after a state/local official act is not the same as a bribed paid seeking an official act. Accordingly, offering/accepting a gratuity is not prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §666. States are free to make gratuities illegal, and this was clearly the right decision.

As relevant here, §666 originally extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. See Salinas, 522 U. S., at 58; 18 U. S. C. §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II). But after only two years, Congress reversed course. In 1986, Congress amended §666 and thereby avoided the law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and business practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986); see 100 Stat. 3612–3613. As a result of its amendment in 1986,

the statute no longer applies to gratuities.

***

Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was a disappointment to many conservatives and libertarians, but it was really just a matter that the plaintiffs had not fine tuned their allegations to their evidence.

During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information. At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of “misinformation” on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts. The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment.***

The problem was that the plaintiffs did not connect any censorship of their speech to specific acts by the government. If the next plaintiffs point to the same censorship and connect the dots between the government and the censorship of their speech, they should win.

***

Moyle v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024), the Idaho abortion case, is not what some people have claimed. Idaho's statute prohibits abortion. The Federal Government sued the State under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act alleging that the Act preempted Idaho law.

During the course of the litigation, the state and the federal gov't changed their positions what what prohibited or allowed by the laws. Accordingly, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts to settle what positions the parties were taking.

For what it's worth, EMTALA never required hospitals to perform abortions. Indeed, it requires hospitals to protect "the health of the unborn child." 42 U.S.C. §1395dd. It never authorized or required termination of those children.

***

Fischer v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was a January 6 case. The government prosecuted many J6 defendants under a statute that had long prohibited obstructing justice. Nobody ever thought the statute applied to anything about judicial proceedings until these cases.

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “‘have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’”*** Section 1512 provides: “(c) Whoever corruptly— “(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or “(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, “shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”*** One way to discern the reach of an “otherwise” clause is to look for guidance from whatever examples come before it. Two general principles are relevant. First, the canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” *** That “avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with” “the company it keeps.” *** And under the related canon of ejusdem generis, “a ‘general or collective term’ at the end of a list of specific items” is typically “‘controlled and defined by reference to’ the specific classes . . . that precede it.” ***These approaches to statutory interpretation track the common sense intuition that Congress would not ordinarily introduce a general term that renders meaningless the specific text that accompanies it.*** As the Solicitor General acknowledged at oral argument, under the Government’s interpretation, a peaceful protester could conceivably be charged under §1512(c)(2) and face a 20-year sentence. Tr. of Oral Arg. 51–52. And the Government would likewise have no apparent obstacle to prosecuting under (c)(2) any lobbying activity that “influences” an official proceeding and is undertaken “corruptly.” Those peculiar results “underscore[] the implausibility of the Government’s interpretation.”*** To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. *** The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.***

I thought this was an easy case for the defendants. I was surprised that three justices dissented. It's not as if the J6 defendants can't be charged with anything.

***

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was the homeless case from the world's most reversed court, the 9th Cir. In Martin v. Boise, the 9th Cir. said cities could not prohibit camping on public sidewalks, parks, or property. Martin was based on the 8th Amendment. Two homeless people sued Grants Pass because it has an ordinance that forbids such camping.

The Constitution and its Amendments impose a number of limits on what governments in this country may declare to be criminal behavior and how they may go about enforcing their criminal laws*** But if many other constitutional provisions address what a government may criminalize and how it may go about securing a conviction, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” focuses on what happens next. That Clause “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment” a government may “impose for the violation of criminal statutes.”*** All that would seem to make the Eighth Amendment a poor foundation on which to rest the kind of decree the plaintiffs seek in this case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.***

In Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962), the plaintiffs and the dissent observe, this Court addressed a challenge to a criminal conviction under a California statute providing that “‘no person shall . . . be addicted to the use of narcotics.’” Ibid., n. 1. In response to that challenge, the Court invoked the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to hold that California could not enforce its law making “the ‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense.” Id., at 666. The Court recognized that “imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual.” Id., at 667. But, the Court reasoned, when punishing “‘status,’” “even one day in prison would be . . . cruel and unusual.”*** Mr. Robinson’s resort to the Eighth Amendment was comparatively brief. He referenced it only in passing, and only for the proposition that forcing a drug addict like himself to go “‘cold turkey’” in a jail cell after conviction entailed such “intense mental and physical torment” that it was akin to “the burning of witches at the stake.” Robinson Brief 30. The State responded to that argument with barely a paragraph of analysis, Brief for Appellee in Robinson v. California, O. T. 1961, No. 61–554, pp. 22–23, and it received virtually no attention at oral argument. By almost every indication, then, Robinson was set to be a case about the scope of the Due Process Clause, or perhaps an Eighth Amendment case about whether forcing an addict to withdraw from drugs after conviction qualified as cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, the case turned out differently.***

Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.”*** As we have seen, Robinson already sits uneasily with the Amendment’s terms, original meaning, and our precedents. Its holding is restricted to laws that criminalize “mere status.” Nothing in the decision called into question the “broad power” of States to regulate acts undertaken with some mens rea. And, just as in Powell, we discern nothing in the Eighth Amendment that might provide us with lawful authority to extend Robinson beyond its narrow holding.*** Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370 U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting). The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy. The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Status crimes and Robinson are ordinarily the completely wrong answer. In Robinson there was no evidence that he had ever performed any act in California. In 99.999% of cases that make it to court, the defendant did something; the defendant is not charged with anything related to status.

***

The last big case was Trump v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024).

***the indictment charged Trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.1 Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity. In his view, the conduct alleged in the indictment, properly characterized, was that while he was President he (1) “made public statements about the administration of the federal election”; (2) communicated with senior Justice Department officials “about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership” of the Department; (3) “communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it”; (4) “communicated with the Vice President” and with “Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification”; and (5) “authorized or directed others to organize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the Vice President to exercise his official authority in a manner advocated for by President Trump.”*** [This case] requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. We undertake that responsibility conscious that we must not confuse “the issue of a power’s validity with the cause it is invoked to promote,” but must instead focus on the “enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 634 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity. See id., at 28–30, 36–37, 124. They disagree, however, about whether a former President can be prosecuted for his official actions. Trump contends that just as a President is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756, he must be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts.***

Although the Government agrees that some official actions are included in the indictment’s allegations, see id., at 125, it maintains that a former President does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any actions, regardless of how they are characterized. See Brief for United States 9. We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.***

The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “disabl[es] the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 166. If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.***

Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. B But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and Congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 U. S., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion). The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.***

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”***

C As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. *** Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. We offer guidance on those issues below. Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.

A Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office.*** some Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”*** In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.***

Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For instance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal violated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. ***

The indictment alleged that Trump called DoJ to challenge the election results.

The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s “use of official power.” Brief for United States 46; see id., at 10–11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 125. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.”*** The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.***

The indictment alleged that Trump asked his VP to interfere with the election in his role of counting electoral votes.

The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.*** It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.***

The indictment alleged some contacts with state officials relating to the election.

Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.***

The indictment alleged Trump committed crimes in his communications on January 6 itself.

[The president is] expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 868. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.***

The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. *** Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.***

Official acts cannot be used as evidence even

“for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.”***

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

[lexcounselsblog]

Service Tax on Commercial Rent Referred to Larger Bench of Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court (“DHC”) yesterday, ordered the adjudication of writ petitions challenging the levy of service tax on renting of commercial property, by a larger bench of the DHC to be constituted in this regard. Further to the order of the Supreme Court of India, the writ petitions came up before the DHC yesterday for final arguments and adjudication. Mr. S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the Petitioners and the Additional Solicitor General of India appeared on behalf of the Government, and put forth their respective preliminary arguments. Upon consideration of the arguments made by counsels for both sides, the DHC ordered adjudication of the writ petitions by a larger bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice of DHC. The matter is now listed for next hearing on Tuesday, February 22, 2011.

Relax FDI Norms For Convertible Instruments: DIPP

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) wants to relax the foreign direct investment norms for convertible instruments. This move of DIPP is aimed at encouraging greater private equity participation and venture capital deals in the country. Presently, the price of all the capital instruments that are issued to foreign investors has to be decided upfront, at the time of issue of the instruments. Arguably, this condition deprives the foreign investors of getting a better valuation afterwards, in the event of better performance by the investee company. This precondition, reportedly, constrains flexibility in the industry and prevents FDI inflows into the country. Departure from the current norms for convertible instruments would provide flexibility to the private equity and venture capital investors, who would then have the opportunity to link the conversion price of the instruments to the performance of the investee company. DIPP Secretary, Mr. R. P. Singh has written a letter to Finance Secretary and Reserve Bank of India Governer seeking their views on the issue. Relaxation in the norms for convertible instruments, if any, might be seen in the consolidated FDI Policy of India due to be released on March 31, 2011.

Exemption Under Section 212(8) of the Companies Act, 1956

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) has released a circular granting exemption to the holding companies from attaching the particulars of its subsidiaries to the balance sheet of the holding company in terms of Section 212 of the Companies Act, 1956 (“Act”). Section 212 of the Act stipulates that at the end of any financial year, a holding company is required to attach to its balance sheet, the particulars of its subsidiaries, including their balance sheet, profit and loss account, auditors’ report, report of the Board of Directors, etc. The MCA circular is prompted by a large number of applications received from the holding companies under section 212(8) of the Act seeking exemption from the aforesaid requirement. Accordingly, in terms of the circular, the provisions of Section 212 of the Act shall not apply to those holding companies, which would abide by and fulfill the conditions laid down in the circular including resolution of the Board of Directors of the holding company to this effect, inclusion of consolidated and audited financial statement of the holding company and all subsidiaries in the annual report with specific information, availability of the accounts of the subsidiaries for inspection by the shareholders, etc.

For more information contact us.