Blacknell.net

Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Law Page 22 of 27

PACER Recycling!

By

On February 1, 2008

In Law

This post breaks a number of my usual rules.  It relates to the practice of law.  It posts an email from a listserv.  I did not ask for permission.  But I think I’ll manage to live with it, as this is a *great* idea:

 From: Carl Malamud [carl@media.org]
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 5:43 PM
To: David Farber
Subject: Recycle your documents and help save the judiciary

Greetings –

For IP if you wish.  Public.Resource.Org and Creative Commons are pleased to announce a new site that allows users to recycle PACER documents:

http://pacer.resource.org/

PACER is the system that the U.S. Courts use to distribute opionions, briefs, and other documents at $0.08/page.  The system rakes in so much money there is $146.6 million they don’t know what to do with.

Rather than waste all these documents and help contribute to the rhetorical warming of the Internet, pacer.resource.org lets users upload their used PACER docs for recycling.

And, since recycling may not be conducive to your lifestyle but you support the idea of saving, we offer a program of digital offsets so you can become a net neutral (sorry Dave) contributor to the public domain.

Carl Malamud

Great work, Carl.  I’ll be contributing, shortly.

Credit Card Foreign Transaction Fee Settlement

By

On December 14, 2007

In Law, Personal

A bit on NPR just reminded me of a bit of paperwork that I have to complete. Well, me and maybe 30 million other people. As you may already know, there is a proposed settlement for a pending class action suit involving anyone who made a foreign purchase with a credit card between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006. Assuming that the proposed settlement is approved by the court, class members will received a refund of part of the foreign transaction fee that was charged any time they used a US credit card outside of the US.

I received my first notice about this some time ago. However, I didn’t think I’d end up taking advantage of it, as you not only had to know when you traveled, but you had to have your actual credit card records substantiating each transaction. I don’t know about you, but I don’t keep my credit cards records for 10+ years. I know what I did last year. 1997? Not so clear.

However, the most recent settlement draft seems to have simplified things greatly. Roughly, you can:

  1. take a straight $25 settlement if you traveled outside the US at least once in this period (and simply swear to that fact);
  2. get a somewhat larger settlement based on a declaration of how many total days you spent outside the US during that period (the settlement will be based on an estimated average figured out by the credit card companies and class action representatives); or
  3. provide a substantiated record of how much money you actually spent outside of the US during that period, and receive a refund of the fees actually charged.

I suspect I’d probably end up with a larger settlement if I could substantiate all of my spending, but that would involve such a ridiculous amount of time and effort that I’m going to opt for option 2 (which, for the most part, is simply a matter of going through my passports and deciphering the visa stamps). I encourage fellow travelers to take the time to participate in this settlement. It was conventional wisdom (encouraged by the credit card companies) that you received the best exchange rate by using your credit card overseas. While that may be technically true, their tacking on of unpublicized fees certainly made that a moot point. Make sure they have to pay for that deception.

More info at the official settlement site (tho’ really, doesn’t that look like a scam site? It’s not.) Court approval of the settlement could come, at the earliest, on March 31st. Checks go out after approval.

Also, this is not legal advice, I am not your lawyer, etc.

Gun Control: Back in the Spotlight

By

On November 20, 2007

In DC, Law, Policy

Every Democrat in the country better be ready for a barrage of gun control questions between now and the general election next year.  Why?  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that goes to the core of the Second Amendment, which reads:

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Vastly oversimplifying things, it’s about whether the “right to bear arms” is a right that you – as an individual – have, or whether the right to bear arms is only as part of a “well-regulated Militia” (which is then up to the States to define).  If there is an *individual* right to bear arms, then many of the existing restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership may well be found unconstitutional.  I think it’s a perfectly valid question, and something that the Supreme Court has been avoiding for years.  So I’m happy to see that it will be sorted out.  As a lawyer, anyway.

But the real harm here is going to be the reinsertion of the “Democrats want to take your guns away!” canard into the political sphere.  If ever it was true, it certainly hasn’t been true for decades.  Yet it remained a regular (and effective) rallying cry for the GOP (a wholly owned subsidiary of the NRA, for the purpose of this issue).  It had faded, in recent years, and I was glad to see that.  But look for this case to put it front and center again.  Democrats need to prepare to ready, aim, and fire back.

Hand Over Heart: It’s the Law!

By

On November 16, 2007

In Law, Society

Did you know this?

According to U.S. law, a civilian like Obama is supposed to stand up when the anthem is played, take off his hat, face the flag, and put his right hand over his heart.

I did not know this.  I’d always assumed that the highest authority in the matter of what to do was social convention.

Friday Notes: Lawyers Protesting, Explaining Perspective, and Musical Maps

By

On November 16, 2007

In DC, Law, Society, Tech

I went to the DC lawyers march in support of the lawyers in Pakistan.   It makes me cringe just to write that.   Though well -intentioned, it just seemed so . . . off.   In any event, it did result in my two favorite lines of the week.  The first was by another lawyer, saying that “this was the first protest I’ve been to where everyone arrived in cabs.”  Tis true – the curbside in front of the Library of Congress looked like the Mayflower Hotel cabstand.  The second line might reach what made this “march” okay, cringeworthiness aside.  A few people from (what I assumed to be) Code Pink came along, cheering and asking –

“What took you so long?”

Indeed.  For a more thought out take on the US lawyers rallies across the country, check this out.

~

Occam’s Hatchet at dKos uses the classic Flatland book to explain the importance of perspective.  An excellent read.

~

Barry Ritholtz at the Big Picture linked to this interesting little tool from Gracenote a little while back.  Gracenote is the company that provides the track information for the CDs that you put in your computer.*  They’ve now created a map that lists the 10 most popular artists and albums by continent and country.   It’s a bit of a rough measurement – the results, of course, are heavily skewed towards the demographic that can afford computers constantly connected to the internet.  That said, it’s still quite fun to poke around.  Finland?  There’s something wrong with that country . . .

*Saving you kids all that typing we had to do back in the mid 90s.  Uphill.  Both ways.

Lawyer’s March for Pakistan

By

On November 11, 2007

In Law, Society

Men in black

What: Lawyers’ march for the rule of law in Pakistan
When: 11:30 am, Wednesday, November 14
Where: Meet at Plaza of Madison Building of the Law Library of Congress

(101 Independence Avenue SE) before walking to the Supreme Court
Attire: Black suit


Photo courtesy orionoir.

Dems Cave on Telecom Immunity?

By

On October 18, 2007

In Distribution, Law, Politics, Society

[Update: Let’s put the Senate hold to a better use than porkbarrel politics – call Sen. Chris Dodd and urge him to put a hold on the FISA bill.]

If this Washington Post story is right, the Democrats have just hit the bottom of the credibility and effectiveness barrel. Handing out a blank Get Out of Jail card to telecom providers on the basis of the say-so of the Bush Administration? On *any* basis? That makes them not only fools, but dangerous fools.

This country was founded and has thrived on the rule of law. That is, the law is publicly known, and applies equally and predictably to all. You may scoff, thinking of some recent criminal case of injustice, but the rule of law really has been at the foundation of America’s success. It has provided for the certainty and safety of its people, who were not subject to the secret (and not so secret) whims and graces of individual men.

And now both the Republicans and Democrats are throwing that out in favor of . . . of *what*? What can possibly be gained by this? They’re still going to get their telecom industry contributions if they don’t do this. They’re not losing any safety – remember, this is *retroactive* immunity. So what is it? The sheer pleasure of knowing that you’re playing an integral part in deconstructing America? Didn’t want to let Bush get all the credit for that? Fools.

(When this comes down to a vote, I look forward to matching up those who vote for telecom immunity against those who voted against “amnesty” for illegal immigrants. Should be some interesting contrasts in rhetoric coming from the same people . . .).

The Army Airs Some Laundry

By

On October 13, 2007

In Law, Policy

This New York Times article gives a much needed glimpse into the internal conversations going on at Ft. Leavenworth:

“home to the Combined Arms Center, a sprawling Army research center that includes the Command and General Staff College for midcareer officers, the School of Advanced Military Studies for the most elite and the Center for Army Lessons Learned, which collects and disseminates battlefield data.”

It’s far too short of an article (I’d loved to have seen a New Yorker-length treatment of the matter) and I don’t doubt for a minute that availability of the officers was carefully managed. But even with those limitations, it’s a good read. Take, for example:

[H]e questioned whether Americans really wanted a four-star general to stand up publicly and say no to the president in a nation where civilians control the armed forces.

For the sake of argument, a question from the reporter was posed: If enough four-star generals had done that, would it have stopped the war?

“Yeah, we’d call it a coup d’etat,” Colonel Fontenot said. “Do you want to have a coup d’etat? You kind of have to decide what you want. Do you like the Constitution, or are you so upset about the Iraq war that you’re willing to dismiss the Constitution in just this one instance and hopefully things will be O.K.? I don’t think so.”

Check it out.

An Impossible Nomination

By

On August 27, 2007

In Law, Politics

I’m having a really hard time imagining who Bush can nominate to replace Gonzales. Any acceptable nominee – i.e., someone who prioritizes the rule of law, and not party rule – is by definition going to be a direct threat to the Bush Administration. And that’s just a choice Bush couldn’t possibly make, I think.

Update: oh, look, Republicans are thinking exactly the same thing . . . 

Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2007

By

On August 19, 2007

In Law, Society, Travel

Howling Latina brings us up to date on the most recent efforts in Congress to get rid of the absolutely ridiculous prohibitions on American citizens traveling to Cuba.   It sounds like we might actually get somewhere on the matter.

I’ve never understood the point of this specific policy (beyond the Miami pandering and making Jesse Helms feel good).  I still remember cluing into the fact that my government actually prohibited me from traveling to another country.  It was right after we moved back from West Germany.  Where I’d been to East Germany.  Which was horrible because it wouldn’t let its people travel.

Yeah.

Page 22 of 27

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén