#litigation support company

[seacoastmultimedia]

The Benefits of Hiring a Litigation Support Company

There are many benefits to hiring a litigation support company to assist with your legal case. Here are some of the key benefits:

Increased Efficiency: A litigation support company can help you manage the vast amounts of data and documents involved in a legal case. They can use technology and tools to organize, search, and analyze this information, making it easier to access and review relevant information quickly and efficiently.

Read more:

[rdcappraisalsllc]

NYC Litigation Support Services by RDC Appraisals

[hasib51ahmed]

[fairuzfan]

“For years, CCR and others have been warning of the abuse of broad ‘material support’ laws to shrink the space for Palestinian rights,” said Diala Shamas, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The group represented another Palestinian rights organization in what Shamas said was “years-long, meritless litigation” brought by the Jewish National Fund, a group that funds Israeli settlements.

“The law’s provision of civil damages means that private actors — including those with seemingly endless resources — can bog you down in costly and distracting litigation,” Shamas said. “This means that Palestinians and those who support their rights become ‘high risk’ — and those who they rely on — charities, funders, banks or social media companies — are chilled from further engagement. The goal is to isolate Palestinians.”

[theoutcastrogue]

"The majority of high-tech patent lawsuits are brought by patent trolls—companies that exist not to provide products or services, but primarily have a business using patents to threaten others’ work. Some politicians are proposing to make that bad situation worse. ...

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act, S. 2140, (PERA), sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) would be a huge gift to patent trolls, a few tech firms that aggressively license patents, and patent lawyers. For everyone else, it will be a huge loss. That’s why we’re opposing it, and asking our supporters to speak out as well. 

Patent trolling is still a huge, multi-billion dollar problem that’s especially painful for small businesses and everyday internet users. But, in the last decade, we’ve made modest progress placing limits on patent trolling. The Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank barred patents that were nothing more than abstract ideas with computer jargon added in. Using the Alice test, federal courts have kicked out a rogue’s gallery of hundreds of the worst patents. 

Under Alice’s clear rules, courts threw out ridiculous patents on “matchmaking”, online picture menus, scavenger hunts, and online photo contests. The nation’s top patent court, the Federal Circuit, actually approved a patent on watching an ad online twice before the Alice rules finally made it clear that patents like that cannot be allowed. The patents on “bingo on a computer?” Gone under Alice. Patents on loyalty programs (on a computer)? Gone. Patents on upselling (with a computer)? All gone. ...

PERA’s attempt to roll back progress goes beyond computer technology. For almost 30 years, some biotech and pharmaceutical companies actually applied for, and were granted, patents on naturally occuring human genes. As a consequence, companies were able to monopolize diagnostic tests that relied on naturally occurring genes in order to help predict diseases such as breast cancer, making such testing far more expensive. The ACLU teamed up with doctors to confront this horrific practice, and sued. That lawsuit led to a historic victory in 2013 when the Supreme Court disallowed patents on human genes found in nature. 

If PERA passes, it will explicitly overturn that ruling, allowing human genes to be patented once again. ...

“To See Your Own Blood, Your Own Genes”

From the 1980s until the 2013 Myriad decision, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted patents on human genomic sequences. If researchers “isolated” the gene—a necessary part of analysis—they would then get a patent that described isolating, or purified, as a human process, and insist they weren’t getting a patent on the natural world itself.

But this concept of patenting an “isolated” gene was simply a word game, and a distinction without a difference. With the genetic patent in hand, the patent-holder could demand royalty payments from any kind of test or treatment involving that gene. And that’s exactly what Myriad Genetic did when they patented the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences, which are important indicators for the prevalence of breast or ovarian cancer. 

Myriad’s patents significantly increased the cost of those tests to U.S. patients. The company even sent some doctors cease and desist letters, saying the doctors could not perform simple tests on their own patients—even looking at the gene sequences without Myriad’s permission would constitute patent infringement. 

This behavior caused pathologists, scientists, and patients to band together with ACLU lawyers and challenge Myriad’s patents. They litigated all the way to the Supreme Court, and won. “A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” the Supreme Court stated in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics. 

A practice like granting and enforcing patents on human genes should truly be left in the dustbin of history. It’s shocking that pro-patent lobbyists have convinced these Senators to introduce legislation seeking to reinstate such patents. Last month, the President of the College of American Pathologists published an op-ed reminding lawmakers and the public about the danger of patenting the human genome, calling gene patents “dangerous to the public welfare.”  

As Lisbeth Ceriani, a breast cancer survivor and a plaintiff in the Myriad case said, “It’s a basic human right to see your own blood, your own genes.” "

[scoonsalicious]

9.2 Major

Pairing: Bucky Barnes x Fem!Reader

Summary: Lily McIntyre, trainer for new SHIELD recruits at the Avengers Tower, has been in love with her best friend, Bucky Barnes, from the moment she met him. She's been content with her role of the #1 girl in Bucky's life, even if it means she has to sabotage a romantic relationship or two. It'll be worth it when he realizes that they're meant for each other, right? There's just one small problem: Lily McIntire never expected Bucky Barnes to fall for You.

Warnings: (For this part only; see Story Masterlist for general Warnings) Language, mentions of past cheating.

Word Count: 2.3k

Previously On...: Bucky and Lily had a conversation. Now Lily knows you and Bucky are dating.

A/N: Sorry this is late; I had to clean out my office after hours today. It was... an experience, to say the least :/

If you ever feel so inclined to support my work, hop on over to buy me a coffee; it's much appreciated! <3

NOTE! The tag list is a fickle bitch, so I'm not really going to be dealing with it anymore. If you want to be notified when new story parts drop, please follow @scoonsaliciousupdates

Thank you to all those who have been reading; if you like what you've read, likes, comments, and reblogs give me life, and I truly appreciate them, and you!

“I think you’re a fucking idiot,” your best friend, Hannah Santiago, said to you as you sat in the coffee shop across the street from The WarZone. She had been furious with you when you hadn’t answered her texts all weekend, so you promised her a lunch date to catch her up on your last few days in the company of one Bucky Barnes.

She did not appear to be taking it very well.

“Why?” you asked, mildly insulted. “He’s amazing, Han. I think you’ll really like him when you get to know him.”

Hannah rolled her eyes at you. “Oh, I’m sure he’s a peach,” she agreed with just a hint of sarcasm. “Though I’d probably feel better about it if you got to know him, too, before shacking up with him for days on end!”

“It’s NRE,” you told her, as if that perfectly explained the intense connection you felt you shared with Bucky. “That New Relationship Energy.”

“Oh my god,” Hannah groaned. “Get off of TikTok. You’re too fucking old for that shit.” A mother at the next table over with an infant in a stroller gave her a disapproving look and audibly tsked at her, but Hannah just responded with a glare.

“It’s great for marketing,” you grumbled.

“Look,” Hannah conceded with a sigh, “I’m sure this guy is wonderful, really. But (Y/N), sweetie, you haven’t had a serious relationship since you and Connor split.” You opened your mouth to protest, despite knowing she was right, but Hannah silenced you with a look. “I’m not saying I don’t want you to get back out there; lord knows it's past time– I just want you to be smart about it and not rush into anything headfirst with someone you barely know.”

Logically, of course, you knew Hannah was right. “He suggested we should put a pause on having sex so we can focus on getting to know each other better,” you offered. 

Hannah raised a well-manicured eyebrow. “Okay, that’s interesting,” she said. “Especially if it was as good as you said it was.”

You dropped your chin into your hand as you rested your elbow against the table and sighed dreamily. “Hannah, it’s like nothing I’ve ever experienced. I swear, I don’t even know if I can call anything Connor ever gave me an actual orgasm after then things Bucky’s done to my body.”

The mother at the next table muttered something about “inappropriate talk” under her breath, but loud enough that you both could hear her. 

“Last time I checked,” Hannah said pointedly at you, though projecting her voice so that you knew it was actually for the other woman’s benefit, “‘inappropriate’ speech is still free speech. So sue me, please.”

You rolled your eyes good naturedly. As a First Amendment litigator, Hannah took Freedom of Speech extremely seriously. “Han,” you warned. “Let it go. This isn’t a courtroom.”

“Fine,” your friend said, ignoring the mother as she stood up and walked away with her stroller. “I’m just worried about you,” she said. “The last time you jumped headfirst into a relationship without really knowing the guy, you ended up married for nine years.”

You hated that she was right– you did have a track record of impulsive relationship decisions. “I appreciate you looking out for me,” you offered, reaching out to squeeze Hannah’s hand across the table. 

“So, do you really see this turning into a long term thing?” Hannah asked, genuinely curious. “Because I’ll support you if you do; I’ll just tell you I told you so if it all falls apart at your feet.”

“I think I do,” you told her, choosing to ignore her jab about rubbing failure in your face. “I know it’s early, but… I’m happy when I’m with him. There’s just the one issue with his–” You paused, not quite sure you wanted to divulge the Lily-sized elephant in your relationship with Bucky just yet.

“One issue with what?” Hannah asked. “And you better not say ‘nothing,’ otherwise I will use my cross examination skills against you,” she threatened. 

Having no desire to subject yourself to that, you relented. “It’s just… he’s got this female best friend–”

“Oh, hell no!” Hannah said, loudly enough to attract the attention of most of the other coffee shop patrons. “Nope, we are not doing this, (Y/N). I will not stand by and watch you go through that all over again.”

Truthfully, this was the reaction you had been expecting. “I’m not the same person I was back then, Han,” you protested. “Bucky’s not Connor, and Lily’s not Danielle.”

You understood your friend’s anger on your behalf. When Connor had promised you there was nothing between him and his childhood best friend, Danielle, you’d naively believed him, despite the gnawing sensation in your gut that told you something wasn’t right with their relationship. It was years before the instinct grew enough to convince you to look at his phone and you had found thousands of text messages between the two of them. You’d promptly thrown up.

His reaction had been textbook. At first, he tried to gaslight you– you didn’t see what you thought you saw; you were taking innocent conversations out of context (though, you weren’t sure how much context the exchanging of nudes really needed). Then, he tried to shift the blame on you– you were never around, always away on deployment or assignments. You emasculated him by getting promoted again and again, until you outranked him, and how was he supposed to live with that? Finally, he love bombed you, showering you with compliments and praise, begging you to forgive him, making promises you knew he would never keep, telling you he’d do anything to get you to stay.

Except for cutting off all contact with Danielle, apparently. He was willing to do anything, anything at all to regain your trust… just not the one thing you’d actually asked of him.

In the end, the divorce had been relatively straight forward. You weren’t stupid. You’d made sure to take screenshots of all of the text conversations between him and his mistress in case he deleted them. You’d even recorded the conversation you had with him when you confronted him, and he’d actually admitted to it. 

There were a lot of things you had disliked about the United States Army, but their stance on cheating hadn’t been one of them. Connor had ended up demoted, and you were able to maintain all of your financial assets without having to shell out anything for spousal support, despite the fact that you had out-earned him by more than double. 

As for Danielle? Well, you became an expert at giving her the cold shoulder and pretending like she didn’t exist.

“You never thought Connor would end up like Connor, either,” Hannah told you pointedly. “And yet.”

You sighed. Your friend had a point, you knew she did, but you just couldn’t imagine Bucky doing that to you. 

“Look, I’m not trying to shit in your cornflakes,” Hannah said. “I love you and I’m worried about you. I don’t want to see you rush into something and make the same mistakes again. That’s all.”

“I know, I know,” you agreed. And you really did. Hannah had been your biggest source of support when your marriage had gone to hell. She’d set you up with your attorney, let you stay with her while your housing situation got sorted, and had been your shoulder to cry on all the nights you had too much to drink and swore you were going to die alone. 

“Look, I promise to not jump into anything crazy,” you assured her. “I’ve learned my lesson.”

*

After saying your goodbyes to Hannah so she could return to her firm, you headed back over to The WarZone, hoping to get yourself absorbed in some work so you could get your mind off of Hannah’s worries before they became your worries, too. Natasha should be arriving shortly for her standing Tuesday appointment, and you were hoping to chat with her for a few minutes once she was done. 

The bell above the entry door rang cheerfully as you pushed your way inside, but the atmosphere in the lobby felt unnaturally heavy. You looked up from your phone to see Rand leaning against the reception desk with his arms crossed, glaring at someone across the room, and Zadie trying to pretend to look busy at her computer.

You followed Rand’s gaze and locked eyes with Bucky. His giant frame was spread out across one of the lounge chairs, and he seemed to have been watching Rand with a puzzled sort of wariness. When he turned to look at you, though, a blinding smile broke across his face that made your knees feel weak.

“Hey, sugar,” he greeted, standing up and making his way toward you. 

You moved to meet him halfway. “Hiya, Sarge,” you said, putting your arms around his neck and standing on your toes to kiss him hello. “I missed you.” 

“Oh yeah?” he asked, a teasing glint in his eye as his hands settled on your hips. “I just saw you yesterday.”

“Lotta lonely hours between then and now, Bucky,” you told him evocatively, toying your fingers through the hairs at the nape of his neck.

The loud sound of a clearing throat brought your attention back to Rand, who was looking at you in disbelief. “Really?” he asked.

“Oh, sorry–” you said, purposefully ignoring Rand’s meaning. “Where are my manners? Bucky, this is my office assistant, Zadie–” Zadie waved enthusiastically from her perch behind the reception desk, “-- and my Midtown location manager, Rand. Guys,” you said, taking an excited breath, “this is Bucky.”

“It’s so nice to meet you, Bucky,” Zadie said enthusiastically, and you knew the orchid and note he had sent you on Saturday had definitely won her over to his side. “Major’s told us so much about you.”

“Yeah,” added Rand through gritted teeth, “we’ve heard an awful lot about you, Mr. Barnes.” You shot him a look, silently pleading for him to be nice, or at least remove himself before he said something offensive.

“It’s nice to meet you both, as well,” Bucky said, ever the gentleman. He made to move, and you highly suspected he was going to try to shake hands with them. While you had no doubt Zadie would be friendly, you wouldn’t put it past Rand to just be a dick for the hell of it, so you wrapped your arms around Bucky’s midsection and drew yourself toward him, keeping him in place.

“So,” you began, hoping to distract him from your manager’s open hostility, “to what do I owe the pleasure? Because it is a pleasure to see you, especially when unexpected.”

Bucky smiled and moved a hand to brush a lock of hair away from your face. “Nat mentioned she was coming down for her weekly visit,” he said. “She invited me to come join her; thought I’d like to check out the place for myself.” He leaned in to whisper conspiratorially: “And if I just so happened to run into this pretty girl I’ve had my eye on, well, that would be a bonus.”

His words made your insides dance, leaving you feeling like a giddy teenager. “You’ll have to let me know if she shows up, Sarge,” you teased. “I’ll try to put a good word in for you.”

“You’d do that for me? Thanks, doll,” he grinned.

“Of course, handsome. Where is Nat, anyway?” you asked. The redhead hadn’t been in the lobby when you came in.

“She had to take a phone call. Avengers stuff,” Bucky offered with a shrug. “She shouldn’t be too long.”

As if on cue, the main door opened and Natasha breezed into the lobby. She caught sight of you and Bucky with your arms around one another immediately and threw a knowing smirk your way. “Sorry ‘bout that,” she said. She turned to Bucky and rolled her eyes. “Fury had some questions about the last mission that apparently couldn’t be saved for an email.”

“Fucking bureaucracy,” he muttered. 

“Tell me about it.” Nat’s frown quickly transformed into delighted glee as she rubbed her hands together. “Alright, Barnes. You ready to fuck some shit up?”

“Oh,” chirped Zadie. “I’m sorry, Ms. Romanoff; we didn’t have you down for a doubles’ room. Just your usual single.”

“Zadie, just move them to a VIP room,” you told your office assistant. You turned to Nat. “That should be more than big enough for the both of you.”

“They’re also significantly extra in price,” Rand interjected. 

“Waive the fee,” you said. 

“Sugar,” Bucky said, looking down at you, “that’s not necessary; we can pay the difference.”

“I’m not going to make my boy– er, um… my friends pay for an upgrade I offered them that they didn’t ask for. For fucks’ sake, Rand.” You hoped no one noticed your slipup, but the way Bucky was grinning down at you and squeezing your hip let you know it hadn’t gotten past him at all. 

“No problem, Major,” Zadie said. “Room 5c is available and all ready to go.”

“I’m sure you’re busy being the big boss, doll,” Bucky said as you moved to escort him and Nat to the elevators. You’d be having a chat with Rand later. “But any chance you could join us? I’d really like my first time to be with you.”

“Oh my god,” gagged Natasha. “You’re pathetic, Barnes. Seriously. That was bad.”

“So bad,” you agreed with a laugh, “but it worked.” You grinned at the both of them. “Yeah, of course I’ll help you pop your rage room cherry.”

<- Previous Part / Next Part ->

[simply-ivanka]

Harris and the First Amendment

The Supreme Court rebuked her use of lawfare in California.

By The Editorial Board -- Wall Street Journal

We keep looking for an issue, any issue, on which Kamala Harris differs with the Democratic left, but we keep coming up empty. That includes her party’s use of lawfare against political opponents, as an episode while she was California Attorney General reminds us.

Ms. Harris made headlines a decade ago by threatening to punish nonprofit groups that refused to turn over unredacted donor information. She demanded they hand to the state their federal IRS Form 990 Schedule B in the name of discovering “self dealing” or “improper loans.” The real purpose was to learn the names of conservative donors and chill future political giving—that is, political speech.

Her bullying came amid the Internal Revenue Service’s notorious targeting of conservative nonprofits; Wisconsin’s probe of GOP donors; Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin’s intimidation of donors to the American Legislative Exchange Council; and a campaign of harassment against donors who supported California’s Prop 8 (which banned same-sex marriage).

Free-market nonprofits challenged the Harris dragnet, suing the AG’s office in a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021, the High Court ruled 6-3 that the AG’s disclosure demand broke the law. The Court pointed out that a lower court had found not “a single, concrete instance in which pre-investigation collection of a Schedule B did anything to advance the Attorney General’s investigative, regulatory or enforcement efforts.”

The Court said California’s claim that it would protect donor information lacked credibility, since during the litigation plaintiffs discovered nearly 2,000 Schedule B forms “inadvertently posted to the Attorney General’s website.” It noted that the petitioners and donors faced “threats” and “retaliation.”

The Supreme Court said Ms. Harris’s policy posed a risk of chilling free-speech rights, and it cited its 1958 NAACP v. Alabama precedent, which protected First Amendment “associational” rights. Ms. Harris is citing her experience as state AG as a political asset, but the Bonta case is a warning to voters that she’s willing to use the law as a weapon against political opponents.

Lawfare has failed as a political strategy against Donald Trump while undermining public confidence in impartial justice. Ms. Harris’s record suggests she’ll continue down this abusive road.

Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the August 5, 2024, print edition as 'Harris and the First Amendment'.

[iww-gnv]

Starbucks workers at unionized cafes will receive the pay hikes that their nonunion coworkers first collected in May 2022, a key step as the coffee giant and the union representing some baristas signaled Tuesday that they are working toward breaking a standoff over bargaining. The wage increases are a sign of good faith from Starbucks toward Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union that has organized more than 300 company-owned Starbucks locations. The parties jointly announced Tuesday afternoon that they found a “constructive path forward” during mediation discussions last week. The talks were part of litigation over Workers United’s use of Starbucks’ branding, sparked by a post on social media site X from the union’s account in support of Palestinians. Starbucks and Workers United said they have agreed to start discussions “on a foundational framework” on how to reach collective bargaining agreements for stores. The announcement marks the most noticeable thawing in the two parties’ relationship since the first Starbucks location unionized in December 2021.

[mariacallous]

More US workers will soon be free to leave their employers to work for rivals, thanks to a new federal rule that will block the long-standing practice of locking in workers with noncompete agreements.

The US Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday issued a final rule that bans most noncompetes nationwide. The agency estimated that by allowing people more freedom, the change would lead to the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade.

The FTC says about one in five US workers are bound by contract clauses that prevent them from taking new jobs from a competitor, or starting their own competing businesses, for some period of time. The agreements can trap workers and slow career advancement and wage increases—two things workers often achieve by hopping jobs.

The agreements also disproportionately affect workers in tech and certain other roles: 36 percent of engineers and architects work under noncompetes, as do 35 percent of workers in computer and math fields, according to research from the Universities of Maryland and Michigan.

Under the FTC’s new rule, “tech workers will probably experience a rise in the outside opportunities that they face,” says Evan Starr, an associate professor of business at the University of Maryland who worked on the research. “They’ll have more freedom to work where they want; they will be more likely to be paid higher wages.”

Opponents of noncompetes say they hurt workers by keeping them in lower-waged jobs and also stifle innovation, preventing people from starting their own businesses or putting innovative ideas into practice. Noncompete supporters argue that the arrangements encourage investment in staff and protect trade secrets. But recent research from Starr indicates that banning noncompetes hasn’t led to an increase in trade secret litigation.

The new FTC rule has a carve-out to keep existing noncompetes for senior executives in place. But it blocks companies from creating new noncompetes for these high-level workers. The rule is due to take effect in about four months, but it’s expected to face challenges. Two commissioners who voted against the rule saw it as overstepping the FTC’s power. The US Chamber of Commerce quickly announced after the rule passed that it will sue to try to block it.

Several states, including tech hub California, have already banned enforcement of noncompetes. But a recent tidal shift has seen the issue resonate in dozens of states. In the 2023 legislative session, 38 states introduced 81 bills that sought to ban or restrict enforcement of noncompetes. California’s long-established law is seen as part of the reason Silicon Valley became a hub for innovation, while Massachusetts’s once-similar tech corridor didn’t soar in the same way.

Tech executive Daniel Powers has battled noncompetes twice in his career. In 2010, IBM tried to delay his move from New York to Seattle to work for Amazon Web Services, the online retailer’s cloud division, by a year. The parties settled on Powers taking six months off. Fortunately for Powers, Amazon agreed to pay him even while he couldn’t work.

Two years later, the tables turned. When Powers attempted to take a job with Google Cloud, Amazon sued him, saying he had agreed not to work for one of its competitors within 18 months of leaving. The incident drew headlines as the first noncompete case Amazon had brought against someone inside fast-growing AWS, Powers recalls.

Powers had to move to California—where noncompetes aren’t legal—for the new gig, and his attorney told him to get there as soon as possible. By living in a different state, the lawsuit could be tried in federal court, where his attorney felt Amazon had less of an advantage compared to Washington state court. A federal judge ended up siding with Powers, and he lost only about three months of work at Google while the case played out.

Amazon, IBM, and Google did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Had Powers not received discounted legal help over the years, he says, he could have easily spent over $100,000 battling noncompetes. “It’s just not fair to the employees,” says Powers, who now runs cloud advisory firm What's Next Consulting. “When I won, I got hundreds of emails and texts from Amazon employees thanking me for beating them.”

People in Washington state who want to leave one of the tech giants often must have difficult conversations with their families, advisers, and potential new employer about the risks of litigation and potentially being without a paycheck for a long stretch. Powers estimates that he has aided over 200 former Amazon and IBM colleagues in the process. California workers have no such concerns. “It’s just, ‘OK, goodbye,’” Powers says. “There’s nothing companies can do about it.”

If the new FTC rule ends up in front of the US Supreme Court, he says, his message to the justices will be simple. “Taking away a person’s ability to work in an industry they are trained in, have skills in, and have been in is a massive disservice to the employee,” Powers says. “It’s not the right thing to do to have these agreements.”

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

Aug. 1, 2024

"Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one," said one campaigner. "The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure."

Net neutrality advocates on Thursday sharply condemned a U.S. appellate court decision blocking implementation of the Biden administration's broadband policy while a legal challenge launched by the telecommunications industry moves forward.

Federal Communications Commission Chair Jessica Rosenworcel joined with Commissioners Anna Gomez and Geoffrey Starks in April to reclassify broadband as a public service under Title II of the Communications Act—undoing damage done during the Trump administration.

Internet service providers (ISPs) are fighting to stop the FCC's order. After temporarily delaying the rules last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit just granted a stay. Oral arguments aren't expected until October or November.

"The 6th Circuit's stay will leave Americans without critical net neutrality protections and leave the Federal Communications Commission without its rightful authority over broadband," warned U.S. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in a joint statement Thursday.

"We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."

"That is unacceptable," added the senators, who have led the fight for reviving net neutrality rules in Congress. "We need net neutrality to protect the free and open internet and ensure that internet gatekeepers cannot control what we see, who we talk with, and how we communicate online."

Advocacy groups were similarly critical. John Bergmayer, legal director at Public Knowledge, said that "it is unfortunate that the court granted the ISPs' request for a stay of the FCC's net neutrality rules. These rules would bar broadband providers from throttling connection speeds, blocking websites, and discriminating in favor of preferred internet traffic."

"Millions of Americans have expressed support for these rules by submitting comments with the FCC urging the agency to enact these protections," he noted. "Consumers need net neutrality rules as well as the other consumer benefits provided by the FCC's recognition that broadband is a 'telecommunications' service, including online privacy, public safety and national security, and affordable, competitive broadband service."

"Despite this court's action, we remain confident that the FCC's rules—and classification of broadband as a telecommunication service under Title II of the Communications Act—will ultimately be upheld, just as they were before—or that Congress will step in to reinstate these popular and necessary protections," Bergmayer added.

Free Press vice president of policy and general counsel Matt Wood also characterized the stay as unfortunate but stressed that "we believe that the litigation to follow will dispel these unfounded phone-and cable-company arguments about Title II's supposed harms and about the commission's authority to classify broadband providers properly under the statute."

"Industry lobbyists and other net neutrality opponents have argued, loudly but cynically, that the Trump-era repeal somehow spurred broadband deployment and speed increases, claiming that the rules' presence impairs those upgrades. This is nonsense, as Free Press has shown time and time again by examining the companies' own financial statements and investor briefings," he highlighted. "Today's order unfortunately accepts the false premise that the FCC's rules prevent broadband providers from rolling out new products. ISPs make such claims only in court; they never make them to their investors." "Today's ruling is a setback, but a temporary one. The nation's communications regulator must be able to oversee the nation’s communications infrastructure," Wood continued. "While we hit a procedural hurdle today, Free Press is determined to see the FCC's decision go into effect. The 6th Circuit will still need to evaluate the ISPs' and FCC's arguments in full when it reviews the case on the merits. We're confident that we will ultimately prevail in this case, even in the wake of this disappointing outcome and even in light of recent Supreme Court decisions aimed at weakening federal agencies' oversight."

Rosenworcel was also determined to defend the FCC's decision, declaring Thursday that "the American public wants an internet that is fast, open, and fair. Today's decision by the 6th Circuit is a setback but we will not give up the fight for net neutrality."

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

In late May, 19 Republican attorneys general filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking it to block climate change lawsuits seeking to recoup damages from fossil fuel companies.

All of the state attorneys general who participated in the legal action are members of the Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA), which runs a cash-for-influence operation that coordinates the official actions of these GOP state AGs and sells its corporate funders access to them and their staff. The majority of all state attorneys general are listed as members of RAGA.

Where does RAGA get most of its funding? From the very same fossil fuel industry interests that its suit seeks to defend. In fact, the industry has pumped nearly $5.8 million into RAGA’s campaign coffers since Biden was elected in 2020.

The recent Supreme Court complaint has been deemed “highly unusual” by legal experts.

The attorneys general claim that Democratic states, which are bringing the climate-related suits at issue in state courts, are effectively trying to regulate interstate emissions or commerce, which are under the sole purview of the federal government. Fossil fuel companies have unsuccessfully made similar arguments in their own defense.

RAGA’s official actions — and those of its member attorneys general — closely align with the goals of its biggest donors.

The group, a registered political nonprofit that can raise unlimited amounts of cash from individuals and corporations, solicits annual membership fees from corporate donors in exchange for allowing those donors to shape legal policy via briefings and other interactions with member attorneys general.

A Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) analysis of IRS filings since November 24, 2020 shows that Koch Industries (which recently rebranded) leads as the largest fossil fuel industry donor to RAGA, having donated $1.3 million between 2021 and June 2024.

Other large donors include:

• American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry’s largest trade association

• Southern Company Services, a gas and electric utility holding company

• Valero Services, a petroleum refiner

• NextEra Energy Resources, which runs both renewable and natural gas operations

• Anschutz Corporation, a Denver-based oil and gas company

• American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major trade organization

• Exxon Mobil, one of the largest fossil fuel multinationals in the world

• National Mining Association, the leading coal and mineral industry trade organization

• American Chemical Council, which represents major petrochemical producers and refiners

Many of these donors are being sued for deceiving the public about the role fossil fuels play in worsening climate change: many states — including California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island — as well as local governments — such as the city of Chicago and counties in Oregon and Pennsylvania — have all filed suits against a mix of fossil fuel companies and their industry groups. In the cases brought by New York and Massachusetts, ExxonMobil found support from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief in defense of the corporation.

Paxton has accepted $5.2 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over the past 10 years, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets and reviewed by CMD.

Fossil Fuel Contributions to the Republican Attorneys General Association Includes aggregate contributions of $10K or more from the period November 2020 to March 2024.

Note: This funding compilation does not include law firms, front groups, or public relations outfits that work on behalf of fossil fuel clients, many of which use legal shells to shield themselves from outright scrutiny. For example, Koch Industries, through its astroturf operation Americans for Prosperity, has deployed a shell legal firm in a major Supreme Court case designed to dismantle the federal government’s regulatory authority.

CARRYING BIG OIL’S WATER

This is far from the first time RAGA members have banded together to try to defeat clean energy and environmental regulations. In 2014, the New York Times initially reported on how RAGA circulates fossil fuel industry propaganda opposing federal regulations.

The Times investigation revealed thousands of documents exposing how oil and gas companies cozied up to Republican attorneys general to push back against President Obama’s regulatory agenda. “Attorneys general in at least a dozen states are working with energy companies and other corporate interests, which in turn are providing them with record amounts of money for their political campaigns,” the investigation found. That effort, which RAGA dubbed the Rule of Law campaign, has since morphed into RAGA’s political action arm, the nonprofit Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF).

Since then, RAGA’s appetite to go to bat for the industry has only grown.

In 2015, less than two weeks after representatives from fossil fuel companies and related trade groups attended a RAGA conference, Republican AGs petitioned federal courts to block the Obama administration’s signature climate proposal, as CMD has previously reported. Additional reporting revealed collusion between Republican AGs and industry lobbyists to defend ExxonMobil and obstruct climate change legislation.

There was also the 2016 secret energy summit that RAGA held in West Virginia with industry leaders, along with private meetings with fossil fuel companies to coordinate how to shield ExxonMobil from legal scrutiny. Later that year, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey — aided by 19 other Republican AGs — successfully brought a case before the court that hobbled Obama’s signature climate plan.

Morrisey is currently leading the Republican effort to take down an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation that targets coal-fired power plants.

Often, the attorneys general bringing these cases share many of the same donors who backed the confirmation of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, as pointed out by the New York Times.

And in 2021, Republican attorneys general from 19 states sent a letter to the U.S. Senate committees on Environment and Public Works and on Energy and Natural Resources hoping to persuade senators to vote against additional regulations on highly polluting methane emissions, a leading contributor to global warming.

Since 2022, RLDF’s “ESG Working Group” has been coordinating actions taken by Republican AGs against sustainable investing. Communications from that group obtained by CMD show that it was investigating Morningstar/Sustainalytics and the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Republican AGs announced investigations into the six largest banks for information on their involvement in the Net-Zero Banking Alliance later that year.

LEGACY OF RIGHT-WING ACTIONS

It’s not only about fossil fuels. Attorneys general who are members of — and financially backed by — RAGA have a long track record of pursuing right-wing agendas. In Mississippi, Attorney General Lynn Fitch helped bring the legal case that ultimately overturned Roe v. Wade. In Texas, Paxton has attempted to overturn the Affordable Care Act and sued the federal government over Title IX civil rights protections, and safeguards for seasonal workers, among other policy irritants to the far Right. With support from fellow Republican AGs, he also led one of many efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

In recent years, other pro-corporate major donors have included The Concord Fund, which is controlled by Trump’s “court whisperer” Leonard Leo, Big Tobacco, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for Legal Reform.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sam Levine at The Guardian:

A judge dismissed a bankruptcy case filed by the Gateway Pundit on Wednesday, saying the far-right outlet did not file the case in good faith. The ruling from US bankruptcy judge Mindy Mora in the southern district of Florida comes as the outlet faces significant defamation cases from two Georgia election workers and a former Dominion Voting Systems employee who say the site spread false claims about them after the 2020 election.

Calling the site’s assets “eye-catching”, Mora noted that they were 22 times the size of its liabilities. The company reported nearly $3.1m in revenue in 2023. “TGP remains both balance sheet and cash flow solvent. There is no present financial distress, no looming foreclosure sale, no prospect of a market crash. There is only the State Court Litigation in which TGP must defend itself. That’s not a basis for bankruptcy relief; it’s the justice system in operation,” Mora wrote. The proceedings had also revealed that the company may have been operating in Florida for three years without a proper business license and could owe back taxes to the state, Mora wrote in her 28-page ruling. The Gateway Pundit declared bankruptcy on 24 April saying it was doing so as a litigation strategy in the defamation cases filed against it. Filing for bankruptcy pauses all civil proceedings against a business. The bankruptcy dismissal means the defamation cases can probably continue.

The bankruptcy filing came as lawyers representing Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the two election workers, were completing discovery in their defamation case and had informed the company it intended to take depositions of the Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft and his twin brother, Joe Hoft, who is a contributor. “This is a common tool for reorganization and to consolidate litigation when attacks are coming from all sides. It allows TGP to consolidate this lawfare in one court for ultimate resolution,” Jim Hoft wrote at the time. “While we greatly appreciate the Judge’s careful consideration of the facts of this case, we believe some of the findings are not supported by the existing law or underlying circumstances presented at the hearing or otherwise contained within the record. The Debtor continues to consider its options and will move forward in its legal and business path,” Bart Houston, a lawyer representing the company, said in a statement.

The defamation cases are being closely watched because they are testing whether US libel law can be an effective tool to combat misinformation. The collateral bankruptcy cases are seen as an effort to try to avoid accountability for lying. A judge earlier this month also dismissed a bankruptcy case filed by Rudy Giuliani, who was ordered to pay the two Georgia election workers $148.1m for defaming them last year. After the 2020 election, the Gateway Pundit published several articles falsely saying that Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, both election workers in Fulton county, Georgia, were involved in a plot to scan ballots multiple times and steal the election. The claims were immediately debunked and both women have been cleared of any wrongdoing. The false claims were amplified by Giuliani and other Trump allies and became central to their efforts to overturn the election results. When Trump called Georgia’s top election official and asked him “to find 11,780 votes”, he mentioned Freeman by name.

Judge Mindy Mora dismissed far-right propaganda outlet The Gateway Pundit’s bankruptcy filing on Wednesday because the company filed it for bad faith reasons.

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from EcoWatch:

A new Data for Progress poll shared with The Guardian finds that most voters support litigation against big oil, while nearly half would also back the filing of criminal charges.

On May 3 and 4 of this year, Data for Progress and nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen surveyed 1,206 likely voters in the United States, asking the question of whether respondents believed that “oil and gas companies should be held legally accountable for their contributions to climate change,” including impacts on extreme weather and public health.

“[V]oters strongly want to see companies held accountable for their harmful actions,” said Grace Adcox, Data for Progress senior climate strategist with Fossil Free Media, as The Guardian reported.

Lawsuits against big oil have been ramping up all over the world. Communities across the U.S. have been suing fossil fuel companies for allegedly misleading the public regarding the climate crisis, and just last week France brought the first-ever criminal lawsuit related to climate.

Currently there are 40 civil lawsuits brought by cities and states in the U.S. against oil majors.

Last year Public Citizen also proposed filing criminal charges against fossil fuel companies.

One argument for this strategy is that oil and gas companies knowing their pollution had potential deadly consequences while delaying climate action could be possible grounds for reckless or negligent homicide charges.

According to Aaron Regunberg, Public Citizen’s climate program senior policy counsel, while the idea received some skepticism, several district attorneys’ offices gave it “real, serious interest,” reported The Guardian.

The Data for Progress poll showed that 62 percent of voters surveyed said fossil fuel companies “should be held legally accountable for their contributions to climate change.” This included 84 percent of Democrats, 40 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Independents.

The survey also asked, “Knowing what you do now, do you support or oppose criminal charges being filed against oil and gas companies to hold them accountable for deaths caused by their contributions to climate change?” to which 49 percent of respondents said they would “somewhat” or “strongly” support such action, in comparison with 39 percent who indicated they would not.

Regunberg said this shows that Americans may not feel the idea is too “out there.”

[hasib51ahmed]

Legal Guardians: Navigating Civil and Commercial Law with Dubai's Expert Lawyers

It is essential to seek the advice of knowledgeable solicitors who are familiar with the complex legal system of the United Arab Emirates when it comes to legal issues pertaining to civil and commercial law in Dubai. Having the right legal counsel is crucial to protecting your rights and interests, whether you are in a civil dispute or require legal assistance in business transactions.

Civil and Commercial Lawyers in Dubai:

In Dubai, legal matters related to civil and commercial law require the expertise of specialized lawyers who have a deep understanding of the legal framework and regulations governing these areas. Dubai's civil and commercial attorneys possess the expertise and understanding necessary to manage a broad spectrum of legal matters, such as real estate transactions, employment law, business formation, and contract disputes.

Dubai attorneys provide thorough legal services that are customized to each client's unique needs. They also offer knowledgeable advice and representation all throughout the legal process. These experts can provide clever and practical legal solutions because they have a deep awareness of regional laws and ordinances and can successfully negotiate the complexities of the UAE legal system.

Navigating Civil Law:

Civil law encompasses a broad spectrum of legal matters, including personal injury claims, property disputes, family law, and more. When faced with civil legal issues in Dubai, it is essential to seek the assistance of knowledgeable lawyers who can provide the necessary support and guidance to navigate the legal complexities involved.

Expert civil lawyers in Dubai are well-versed in handling cases related to personal injury, property disputes, labor and employment law, family law, and other civil matters. These solicitors put forth a lot of effort to safeguard the rights and interests of their clients, providing knowledgeable counsel and strong advocacy to guarantee a successful result.

Commercial Law Expertise:

Commercial law governs business and commercial transactions, encompassing contract law, intellectual property, corporate law, and more. Whether you are a business owner, entrepreneur, or involved in commercial activities in Dubai, having access to experienced commercial lawyers is essential to navigate the legal intricacies involved in commercial transactions.

Commercial lawyers in Dubai specialize in providing legal guidance and representation to businesses and individuals involved in commercial activities. They offer comprehensive legal services, including contract drafting and negotiation, intellectual property protection, business formation, mergers and acquisitions, and much more. These lawyers possess the expertise and acumen to offer strategic legal solutions tailored to the specific needs of their clients, ensuring that their commercial interests are safeguarded.

Legal Guidance from Expert Lawyers:

The legal landscape in Dubai is highly dynamic and complex, requiring the expertise of seasoned lawyers who are well-versed in civil and commercial law. Expert lawyers in Dubai offer invaluable legal guidance and representation, utilizing their extensive knowledge and experience to navigate the legal intricacies and advocate for the best interests of their clients.

Whether you are involved in a civil dispute, seeking legal advice for commercial transactions, or require assistance with legal matters in Dubai, having access to expert lawyers is instrumental in safeguarding your rights and navigating the legal complexities effectively.

In conclusion, legal matters related to civil and commercial law in Dubai necessitate the expertise of specialized lawyers who possess a deep understanding of the legal framework and regulations governing these areas. Individuals and companies can confidently navigate the complexities of civil and commercial law with the help of knowledgeable lawyers in Dubai, knowing that well-tailored legal solutions safeguard their rights and interests.

[levynite]

Excerpt:

In late May, Disney's lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime. Arbitration is generally considered a more efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes than litigation, and Disney said explicitly in court documents that the "main benefit of arbitration is avoiding heavy litigation costs." The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a monthlong trial in 2019. Those terms of use — which users must acknowledge to create an account — state that "any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration." Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is "immaterial." "Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate 'all disputes' against 'The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates' arising 'in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,'" the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo's claims.

You kidding me??? What piddling, facetious, grasping bullshit!

In early August, Piccolo's lawyers filed a response slamming Disney's rationale as "preposterous," bordering "on the surreal" and "fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons." "There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death," they wrote in the 123-page filing. They confirmed that he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn't found any charges associated with it after that point. Piccolo's lawyers accused the company of trying to deprive Tangsuan's estate of its right to a jury trial. "The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement," they wrote. Piccolo's lawyers also took issue with the process itself, saying Disney didn't raise its alleged right to arbitration early enough in the proceedings. They further note that Piccolo didn't bring the lawsuit as an individual, but on behalf of Tangsuan's estate, which did not sign off on any such terms. There was no such estate at the time, since Tangsuan was still alive.