JD Supra Hot Docs - Newsworthy Legal Filings From the Source

In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation (this order pertains to Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Bush, et al): Order dismissing FISA claim with leave to amend

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 07:04:32 GMT

Case Name: In Re National Security Agency Telecommunications Records Litigation (this order pertains to Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Bush, et al)
Document Name: Order dismissing FISA claim with leave to amend
Post Date: 07/07/2008
Filing Date: 07/02/2008
Document Summary: This case alleges targeting of the leaders of an Islamic charity and their lawyers by the admitted, targeted warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. It is based on a document that was accidentally disclosed to the plaintiffs by the government that the plaintiffs allege demonstrates that they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping (the exact facts are held under tight seal).

This is the court order dismissing Plaintiffs' FISA claim with leave to amend.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Sophia Helena In 'T Veld v. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State: Complaint For Injunctive Relief

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 21:14:23 GMT

Case Name: Sophia Helena In 'T Veld v. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State
Document Name: Complaint For Injunctive Relief
Post Date: 07/06/2008
Filing Date: 07/01/2008
Document Summary: EFF has filed suit on behalf of a member of the European Parliament, demanding that the U.S. government release records about her "risk assessment" score and other information gathered about her during her international travels. The lawsuit came just days after the disclosure that the U.S. and the European Union may soon finalize an agreement authorizing the transatlantic exchange of large amounts of personal data.

During the ongoing and contentious debates between the U.S. and the EU over travelers' records and the privacy rights of EU citizens, the U.S. government has repeatedly claimed that any person can obtain her records through a FOIA request. To test those assurances, Sophia In 't Veld -- who represents the Netherlands in the European Parliament and serves on the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs -- filed FOIA requests with the Homeland Security, Justice, and State Departments, asking for any information about her that is included in the various U.S. programs and systems used to track international travelers. However, the agencies have failed to comply with the requests as required by federal law.

This is Plaintiff's complaint for injunctive relief.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

In Re National Security Telecommunications Records Litigation: First Amended Master Consolidated Complaint Against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, Cingular Wireless Corp., & New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. For Damages, Declaratory & Equitable Relief

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:47:21 GMT

Case Name: In Re National Security Telecommunications Records Litigation
Document Name: First Amended Master Consolidated Complaint Against Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, Cingular Wireless Corp., & New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc. For Damages, Declaratory & Equitable Relief
Post Date: 07/06/2008
Filing Date: 07/03/2008
Document Summary: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T on January 31, 2006, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in its massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications. In May, 2006, many other cases were filed against a variety of telecommunications companies. Subsequently the Multi-District Litigation Panel of the federal courts transferred approximately 40 cases to the Northern District of California federal court.

This is the latest class action suit brought against AT&T Mobility/Cingular Wireless as a part of the multi-district ligitation.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Pursuant to May 15, 2008 Order

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:08:21 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Pursuant to May 15, 2008 Order
Post Date: 07/06/2008
Filing Date: 06/30/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief Pursuant to the May 15, 2008 Order re: whether to set aside the jury verdict and grant defendant's motion for a new trial.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Defendant's Second Memorandum of Law In Support of Her Motion For New Trial (Dkt. No. 109)

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:03:36 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Defendant's Second Memorandum of Law In Support of Her Motion For New Trial (Dkt. No. 109)
Post Date: 07/06/2008
Filing Date: 06/30/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is defendant's Second Memorandum of Law in Support of her motion for a new trial.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Lenz v. Universal: Opposition to Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:28:52 GMT

Case Name: Lenz v. Universal
Document Name: Opposition to Motion To Dismiss Second Amended Complaint
Post Date: 06/24/2008
Filing Date: 06/20/2008
Document Summary: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed suit against Universal Music Publishing Group (UMPG), asking a federal court to protect the fair use and free speech rights of a mother who posted a short video of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song on the Internet. Stephanie Lenz's 29-second recording shows her son bouncing along to the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy," which is heard playing in the background. Lenz uploaded the home video to YouTube in February to share it with her family and friends. But last month, YouTube informed Lenz that it had removed the video from its website after Universal claimed that the recording infringed a copyright controlled by the music company. Under federal copyright law, a mere allegation of copyright infringement can result in the removal of content from the Internet.

The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment that Lenz's home video does not infringe any Universal copyright, as well as damages and injunctive relief restraining Universal from bringing further copyright claims in connection with the video. This lawsuit is part of EFF's ongoing work to protect online free speech in the face of bogus copyright claims. EFF is currently working with Stanford's Fair Use Project to develop a set of "best practices" for proper takedowns under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

This is the Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Institute of William Mitchell College of Law in support of Defendant's Motion for a new trial

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:58:52 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Memorandum of Amicus Curiae Intellectual Property Institute of William Mitchell College of Law in support of Defendant's Motion for a new trial
Post Date: 06/24/2008
Filing Date: 06/20/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is the memorandum of amicus curiae Intellectual Property Institute of William Mitchell College of Law in Support of Defendant's Motion for a new trial.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Brief of Copyright Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:55:25 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Brief of Copyright Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Defendant
Post Date: 06/24/2008
Filing Date: 06/13/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is the brief of copyright law professors as amici curiae in support of defendant, Jammie Thomas.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Amicus Curiae Brief of Thomas D. Sydnor of the Progress & Freedom Foundation Opposing the Motion for a New Trial

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:48:36 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Amicus Curiae Brief of Thomas D. Sydnor of the Progress & Freedom Foundation Opposing the Motion for a New Trial
Post Date: 06/24/2008
Filing Date: 06/20/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is the Amicus Curiae brief of Thomas D. Snydor of the Progress & Freedom Foundation Opposing the motion for a new trial.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae Motion Picture Association of America Inc. (Oral Argument Requested)

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:44:38 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae Motion Picture Association of America Inc. (Oral Argument Requested)
Post Date: 06/24/2008
Filing Date: 06/20/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is the proposed amicus brief of the Motion Picture Association of America in support of Capitol Records.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Priebe v. Tidwell Bonding, et al: Complaint

Tim Hatton — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:09:11 GMT

Case Name: Priebe v. Tidwell Bonding, et al
Document Name: Complaint
Post Date: 06/23/2008
Filing Date: 07/01/2008
Document Summary: This is a complaint that I am preparing to file in a "bounty hunter" case. Bounty hunters work for bondsmen and are mostly unregulated. The are not police officers, yet they claim the authority to make arrests.

These particular bounty hunters made no effort to comply with the laws of the states of Tennessee or Mississippi before they broke open my client's door, shoved a shotgun in his face, handcuffed him and forcibly returned him to Tennessee.

The complaint asks for damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and emotional distress. It also requests punitive damages. The total damages requested is $2.274 million.

Contributor: Tim Hatton [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Brief Amici Curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, United States Internet Industry Association, and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Jammie Thomas

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:57:51 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records Inc., et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Brief Amici Curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, United States Internet Industry Association, and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Jammie Thomas
Post Date: 06/20/2008
Filing Date: 06/20/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and weighed in as amicus in June of 2008.

This is EFF's Amicus Brief.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

United States of America v. Michael Timothy Arnold: Brief for Amici Curiae Association of Corporate Travel Executives & Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:42:57 GMT

Case Name: United States of America v. Michael Timothy Arnold
Document Name: Brief for Amici Curiae Association of Corporate Travel Executives & Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Appellee's Petition for Rehearing En Banc
Post Date: 06/19/2008
Filing Date: 06/12/2008
Document Summary: On April 21st, the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Arnold that the Fourth Amendment does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports. Customs and Border Patrol are likely to use the opinion to argue that almost every property search at the border is constitutionally acceptable.
EFF filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that laptop searches are so revealing and invasive that the Fourth Amendment requires agents to have some reasonable suspicion to justify the intrusion. Not only are laptops capable of storing vast amounts of information, the information tends to be of the most personal sort, including letters, finances, diaries, photos, and web surfing histories. Prior border search cases distinguished between "routine" suspicionless searches and invasive "non-routine" searches that require reasonable suspicion. Our amicus brief and the lower court opinion relied on these cases to say that the government must also have some cause to search laptops. The Ninth Circuit panel rejected our argument that the privacy invasion resulting from searching computers is qualitatively different from, and requires higher suspicion than, searching luggage or other physical items.
The defendant has time to petition the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, and the Court might agree to do so. The panel included a District Court judge sitting by designation.

This is EFF's Amici Brief supporting a rehearing en banc.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Rajah Baylor v United States of America: Brief for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, The Cato Institute, & the Goldwater Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner

Cato Institute — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:05:11 GMT

Case Name: Rajah Baylor v United States of America
Document Name: Brief for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, The Cato Institute, & the Goldwater Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner
Post Date: 06/18/2008
Filing Date: 06/11/2008
Document Summary: The Hobbs Act is an anti-racketeering law Congress passed in 1946 to allow federal prosecution of extortion and robbery that impedes the flow of commerce across state lines. Today, the Act is used to prosecute local robberies having no more than a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. In this case, for example, the defendant robbed a Cleveland-area pizzeria of $538. The Sixth Circuit held that the Commerce Clause permitted this prosecution because the pizzeria obtained its flour, sauce, and cheese from various states outside Ohio. Cato's brief, joined by the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Goldwater Institute, argues that it is unconstitutional to federally prosecute robberies with such an attenuated effect on interstate commerce. Doing so destroys the line between the States' power to punish violent crime and Congress's power to regulate interstate markets. In addition, this sweeping application of the Hobbs Act is inconsistent with congressional intent and contrary to constitutional clear-statement rules designed to protect federalism and avoid unnecessary constitutional adjudication.

This is the Amici Curiae Brief filed with the US Supreme Court.

Contributor: Cato Institute [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association: Complaint

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:26:23 GMT

Case Name: Showing Animals Respect and Kindness v. Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association
Document Name: Complaint
Post Date: 06/11/2008
Filing Date: 06/09/2008
Document Summary: EFF has asked a federal court to protect the free speech rights of an animal welfare group after its video critiques of animal treatment at rodeos were removed from YouTube due to sham copyright claims.

The group Showing Animals Respect and Kindness (SHARK) is a non-profit organization that videotapes and photographs rodeos in order to expose animal abuse, injuries, and deaths. SHARK posted more than two dozen videos to YouTube to publicize this animal mistreatment. But the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (PRCA) filed takedown demands for 13 of the videos under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), claiming the videos infringed their copyrights. YouTube consequently removed the videos and canceled SHARK's entire YouTube account, even though the PRCA has no copyright claim in live rodeo events.

This is the complaint filed on June 9, 2008.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Donald Walton, United States Trustee v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.: Motion to Dismiss of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Scott Riddle — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:31:56 GMT

Case Name: Donald Walton, United States Trustee v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Document Name: Motion to Dismiss of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Post Date: 06/03/2008
Filing Date: 05/28/2008
Document Summary: This document is the Brief of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. in support of the Motion to Dismiss filed in the adversary proceeding of Donald Walton, United States Trustee v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Contributor: Scott Riddle [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Order Re: Extending time for brief schedule

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Wed, 28 May 2008 06:50:44 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Order Re: Extending time for brief schedule
Post Date: 05/28/2008
Filing Date: 05/20/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and expects to weigh in as amicus.

This is the court's order granting a time extension to file briefs on the matter of whether it performed a "manifest error of law."

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., v. Jammie Thomas: Order Re: Motion for New Trial

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Wed, 28 May 2008 06:45:12 GMT

Case Name: Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., v. Jammie Thomas
Document Name: Order Re: Motion for New Trial
Post Date: 05/28/2008
Filing Date: 05/15/2008
Document Summary: Last October, Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement for file sharing, and hit with a $222,000 judgment. Thomas' case was the first file sharing lawsuit to reach a jury verdict.

On May 15, 2008, Judge Michael Davis requested briefing on whether Thomas should receive a new trial. The court said it was concerned that it might have made a mistake by instructing the jury that Thomas could be found liable if she simply made copyrighted songs available in a shared folder. There's good reason for this concern — as EFF noted at the time, and several courts have since affirmed, "making available" is not a cause of action under copyright law. EFF applauds the court's willingness to revisit this crucial question and expects to weigh in as amicus.

This is the court order requesting briefs from both parties in an effort to determine whether to grant Thomas a new trial due to the court's possible "manifest error of law" in giving the above jury instruction.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Barbara Bauer and Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. v. Jenna Glatzer: Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. To Dismiss the Complaint

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Mon, 26 May 2008 08:00:02 GMT

Case Name: Barbara Bauer and Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. v. Jenna Glatzer
Document Name: Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion of Defendant Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. To Dismiss the Complaint
Post Date: 05/26/2008
Filing Date: 05/19/2008
Document Summary: On May 1, 2008, EFF and the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against suits over statements made by its users.

This is Defendant Wikimedia Foundation Inc.'s Reply Memorandum In Support of their Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Bennie Dean Herring v. United States of America: Brief for Petitioner

Electronic Privacy Information Center — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:45:26 GMT

Case Name: Bennie Dean Herring v. United States of America
Document Name: Brief for Petitioner
Post Date: 05/15/2008
Filing Date: 05/09/2008
Document Summary: Supreme Court To Review Decision on Faulty Arrest.

On February 19, 2008, The US Supreme Court agreed to consider Herring v. United States, a challenge to an arrest based on inaccurate information in a government database. The Court will decide whether to suppress the evidence obtained. In a 1995 opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote, "In recent years, we have witnessed the advent of powerful, computer-based recordkeeping systems that facilitate arrests in ways that have never before been possible. The police, of course, are entitled to enjoy the substantial advantages this technology confers. They may not, however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more efficient law enforcement mechanisms comes the burden of corresponding constitutional responsibilities." EPIC has also highlighted problems with inaccurate government databases in formal comments to federal agencies, as well as a 2003 online campaign urging the reestablishment of accuracy requirements for the FBI's National Crime Information Center, the nation's largest criminal justice database. (February 19, 2008)

This is the Brief for Petitioner.

Contributor: Electronic Privacy Information Center [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Bennie Dean Herring v. United States of America: Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Privacy & Civil Rights Organizations, & Legal Scholars & Technical Experts in Support of Petitioner

Electronic Privacy Information Center — Thu, 15 May 2008 09:38:49 GMT

Case Name: Bennie Dean Herring v. United States of America
Document Name: Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Privacy & Civil Rights Organizations, & Legal Scholars & Technical Experts in Support of Petitioner
Post Date: 05/15/2008
Filing Date: 05/16/2008
Document Summary: EPIC files Amici Curiae Brief in Herring v. USA.
(May 16, 2008)

The US Supreme Court agreed on February 19, 2008 to consider Herring v. United States, a challenge to an arrest based on inaccurate information in a government database. The Court will decide whether to suppress the evidence obtained. In a 1995 opinion, Justice O'Connor wrote, "In recent years, we have witnessed the advent of powerful, computer-based recordkeeping systems that facilitate arrests in ways that have never before been possible. The police, of course, are entitled to enjoy the substantial advantages this technology confers. They may not, however, rely on it blindly. With the benefits of more efficient law enforcement mechanisms comes the burden of corresponding constitutional responsibilities." In addition to filing their Amici brief, EPIC has also highlighted problems with inaccurate government databases in formal comments to federal agencies, as well as a 2003 online campaign urging the reestablishment of accuracy requirements for the FBI's National Crime Information Center, the nation's largest criminal justice database.

This is EPIC'S amici curiae brief in support of petitioner filed on May 16, 2008.

Contributor: Electronic Privacy Information Center [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Barbara Bauer & Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. v. Jenna Glatzer, et al.: Brief in Opposition To Motion To Dismiss

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Wed, 14 May 2008 09:18:25 GMT

Case Name: Barbara Bauer & Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc. v. Jenna Glatzer, et al.
Document Name: Brief in Opposition To Motion To Dismiss
Post Date: 05/14/2008
Filing Date: 05/13/2008
Document Summary: On May 1, 2008, EFF and the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against the operator of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, arguing that federal law immunizes it against suits over statements made by its users.

This is the Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Boywitt v. Brunswick Bancorp d/b/a Brunswick Bank & Trust Company: Complaint, Jury Demand, and Designation of Trial Counsel

Law Office of Steven Siegler, Esq. — Tue, 13 May 2008 09:44:27 GMT

Case Name: Boywitt v. Brunswick Bancorp d/b/a Brunswick Bank & Trust Company
Document Name: Complaint, Jury Demand, and Designation of Trial Counsel
Post Date: 05/13/2008
Filing Date: 05/01/2008
Document Summary: Whistleblower Sues Brunswick Bank & Trust for Wrongful Termination

Whistleblower Richard Boywitt was just doing his job when he told his boss that he intended to file a report about a potential money laundering scheme involving a bank customer and two tellers. Instead of thanking Mr. Boywitt for exposing the suspicious activity, the Bank's President, Roman T. Gumina, III, allegedly cursed him out and fired him.

So says the Complaint filed on May 1, 2008 in the case of Boywitt v. Brunswick Bancorp d/b/a Brunswick Bank and Trust Company, Docket No. MID-L-3503-08. According to the Complaint, Mr. Boywitt served as the Bank Secrecy Act Compliance Officer for the local New Jersey bank, where his job duties included monitoring customer transactions and filing reports of suspicious banking activity with FinCen, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury. In late March or early April 2007, Mr. Boywitt learned that a bank customer had repeatedly exchanged thousands of dollars in old $5 bills for new cash. When Mr. Boywitt questioned the Bank's two head tellers about the transactions, they stonewalled him, refused to follow his instruction to monitor the customer further, and allegedly lied to him regarding a transaction where $8,000 of the old cash was exchanged for new.

The Complaint further alleges that Mr. Boywitt, who was obligated by law to report this suspicious activity, notified his boss, Mr. Gumina, of his intent to file a report with FinCen. Two days later, Mr. Gumina allegedly cursed out Mr. Boywitt and abruptly fired him, saying "you would file (a suspicious activity report) against (Bank) employees? Are you f-----g out of your mind? You're fired!"

"Here is an employee who was just trying to do his job, and was fired because of it," said Mr. Boywitt's attorney, Steven Siegler, Esq., of East Brunswick, NJ. "This is a wrongful and, in my view, unlawful termination."

Contributor: Law Office of Steven Siegler, Esq. [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Capt. J. Thomas Martin, et al.: Letter Opinion

Electronic Privacy Information Center — Sun, 11 May 2008 14:36:41 GMT

Case Name: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Capt. J. Thomas Martin, et al.
Document Name: Letter Opinion
Post Date: 05/11/2008
Filing Date: 05/08/2008
Document Summary: EPIC Prevails in Virginia Fusion Center FOIA Case

On May 8, 2008, Richmond General District Court held that EPIC "substantially prevailed" on the merits of its freedom of information lawsuit against the Virginia State Police. EPIC filed the case after the State Police refused to disclose documents describing the federal government's involvement in efforts to limit Virginia's transparency and privacy laws. Through the litigation, EPIC uncovered a secret contract between the State Police and the FBI that limits the rights of Virginia citizens to learn what information the State Police collect about them. The court's letter opinion requires the State Police to pay EPIC's litigation costs, but not its attorneys' fees. For more information, see EPIC's web page EPIC v. Virginia Department of State Police: Fusion Center Secrecy Bill.

This is the Court's Letter Opinion.

Contributor: Electronic Privacy Information Center [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Kroll vs. Incline Village General Improvement District, et al.: Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Civil Rights Complaint

Steven Kroll — Sun, 11 May 2008 09:46:26 GMT

Case Name: Kroll vs. Incline Village General Improvement District, et al.
Document Name: Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Civil Rights Complaint
Post Date: 05/11/2008
Filing Date: 05/09/2008
Document Summary: "'Wishful thinking' would be the most charitable spin one could put" on Defendants' claim that "Plaintiff does not appear to dispute that joinder of these additional parties may well be necessary" under the FRCP Rule 19 Indispensable Parties-based part of their Motion to Dismiss replies the Plaintiff. He points to "the actual words" of Paragraph 86 of his First Amended Complaint: "plaintiff is of the belief and thereon alleges that this Complaint does not, in fact, adversely effect any property rights claimed by the 1968 Deedholders requiring their presence as parties." "That Defendants would raise this issue was, to put it mildly, not unanticipated" says Plaintiff's Opposition Memo. "This attempt to meld public and private into one indistinguishable and inseparable mass was part and parcel of the 'sweetheart deal' between the Developers of Incline Village and the Trustees of the Improvement District back in the 1960s when the idea of transferring the Beach Properties was first concocted." "By inserting the Restrictive Covenant into the 1968 Deed of Sale to the District … the Developers could accomplish through public means what they had failed to bring off with private money, namely the creation of a private beach on the crystalline shores of Lake Tahoe for the exclusive use of the developers' Incline Village home buyers". "And with such a deal came the bonanza of being able to enjoy these exclusive properties as if they were Private Beaches (the District so labels them today), but without having to pay the thousands and millions of dollars of property taxes that would otherwise be due from a Private owner because the District, as a public body, is exempt from such taxes."

Contributor: Steven Kroll [Full Profile | Docs Posted]