Sanford Bail Bond – No end in sight for Oracle, Google legal fight over Android

Source    :  Sports Yahoo
By            :  Dan Levine
Category :  Sanford Bail Bond, Bondsman in Seminole County

No end in sight for Oracle, Google legal fight over Android

Oracle Corp’s long-running legal battle with Google Inc over Google’s Android operating system for smartphones and other devices probably will not proceed to another trial until the middle of 2016, a U.S. judge said on Thursday.

The closely watched case involves how much copyright protection should extend to the Java programming language, which Google used to design the operating system. Oracle is seeking royalties for Google’s use of some of the Java language, while Google argues it should be able to use Java without paying a fee. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to end the case in Google’s favour and sent the case back to San Francisco federal court for further proceedings. In 2012, a jury found that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright but deadlocked on Google’s fair use defence.

In court on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Alsup reviewed a series of legal issues that must be resolved before a retrial on fair use and damages. Oracle has said in court filings that the stakes have only grown, given Android’s “dramatically enhanced market position” compared to when the first trial took place.

Google’s Android operating system is the world’s best-selling smartphone platform. Oracle sued Google five years ago and is seeking roughly $1 billion in copyright claims. Alsup on Thursday said his trial calendar likely precludes another trial until spring of next year. He also asked whether mediation would help the companies settle the case. Google attorney Robert Van Nest said he thought mediation would be “premature.” Still, Alsup ordered the companies into mediation “whether you like it our not.”

Read More :  sports.yahoo.com/news/no-end-sight-oracle-google-legal-fight-over-200224187–finance.html

Bondsman in Seminole county – Why Is There No YouTube For Legal?

Source    :  Above The Law
By            :  Ed Sohn
Category :  Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole county

Why Is There No YouTube For Legal?

Let’s say we were at the local bar / café / kettlebell class and I asked you any one of these questions:

How do you remove icky wallpaper from 80-year-old plaster walls?
What’s the most foolproof way to put your hair in a bun?
Have you heard of this Stack-and-Tilt method for hitting a long drive?

If your instinct was to reach for your phone and YouTube it, nice work. You’re not alone—according to Google, how-to videos are growing 70% year-on-year, with over 100 million hours viewed this year. (If the words “my grandparent taught me” or “that is useless knowledge” were anywhere in your consciousness, you can go ahead, stop reading, and get off the internet, Ron Swanson. That tiny sharpened stick isn’t going to whittle itself.) For today’s frazzled associates, Google or YouTube might not have all the answers to their questions. Litigators may try to turn to DeskSite or WestKM or online brief banks, or attorneys on a tighter budget can at least jump onto PACER and grab briefs from cases. For in-house counsel or transactional lawyers, maybe it’s Practical Law’s checklists and templates for transactional documents, or even EDGAR filings of complex instruments. These are helpful tools, for people with those products and working on those types of tasks. But sometimes, the practice of law demands reinvention, a radical return to sensibility, to intuition.

Why isn’t there a library of YouTube videos for creating an LLC, filing for an H1-B visa, or registering your company’s trademark?
I’m so glad you asked. Suzanne Natbony, co-founder and CEO of LawTake, is a transactional and regulatory senior counsel at McCullough Sudan. She also has a history of working at several startups, and in 2012, she started LawTake, a website where attorneys help people solve their legal issues by posting content – particularly, videos with legal information – and being available to

connect to those people.

Ed Sohn: Suzanne, tell me about LawTake. What do you all do?

Suzanne Natbony: LawTake is the answer for people who are dissatisfied with the current legal market. Unlike current legal services websites that are ineffective at resolving problems or confusing, LawTake is a marketplace for lawyers to post information that consumers can purchase, namely, informative videos on the law. LawTake aggregates videos and legal content similar to YouTube but also offers premium services for lawyers that create instructional videos on the law, along with customizable forms and accompanying materials for consumers to purchase, similar to the way Amazon sells products to consumers. This package can save consumers hundreds of dollars in legal fees and enables top marketing, alternative revenue sources and efficiencies for the lawyers’ legal services, thus creating a win-win situation. Lawyers can set up free accounts and upload their content. They can set a price for their content, of which we’ll take a fee. There’s also premium accounts, where we can help them create professional videos, some of which are LawTake branded.

ES: What kind of lawyers have signed up for LawTake?

SN: Some from large law firms, more from smaller practices. It makes sense for transactional attorneys, especially with the forms.

ES: So there’s other sites out there like this, right? What makes you unique?

SN: Actually, I don’t think there really is any other site like this out there, where it’s only lawyers developing the content themselves and gaining a second source of income this way. LegalZoom has forms but no step-by-step instructional videos. Avvo has ratings but not forms or the ability for a lawyer to profitize the content. This is really a better spot for lawyers that want to increase their

reach.

ES: LegalZoom has some well-documented issues around the unauthorized practice of law. Is this a concern for you? That these videos and forms constitute legal advice?

SN: We addressed this as a potential risk in our business plan, the unauthorized practice of law. We have disclaimers on our site, and the videos contain legal information but not advice. In fact, when we first started, we wanted to be purely instructional and educational, calling them Consumer Legal Education (as a play on “CLE”!). But we found that a lot of lawyers were really reluctant to

reveal their secret sauce in the videos.

ES: How do you navigate that? How do you balance providing a worthwhile service with real benefit to users against lawyers that just want to put marketing fluff up there?

SN: We pivoted to enable lawyers to upload marketing videos, especially in areas like litigation and criminal defense, where self-representation is not such a good idea. The lawyers can provide a semblance of useful information and the rest of it can be self-marketing. And that marketing is actually part of the appeal. Lawyers that can be seen on video can connect with clients in a way that demonstrates they aren’t weird or awkward, and that’s valuable for our

users.

ES: But how do you monitor the quality of those videos?

SN: First, lawyers that want to join the site have to confirm that they are members of the state bar and that they have malpractice insurance. Then they have to certify that their video is instructional or useful in hiring them. Finally, we have a ratings system, and like YouTube and other sites, when there’s a very low rating or a negative comment, there’s an alert system that notifies us that there’s a potential risk with a video. If we investigate and discover that it’s really not a good video, we can take the videos down. But when someone has poor quality lighting or not the best sound, but the information is still good, we’ve found that users are still happy. They are more interested in hearing something that’s useful than being critical about other things.

ES: It sounds like the videos are really at the heart of this. What makes videos so unique for LawTake?

SN: I just always believed that a lot of the legal information people need comes down to giving them a template and letting them watch a video on how to fill out the template. Videos make a big difference. We’ve structured our videos in a particular way, so that we’re not just talking heads or lecturers. For the branded videos we produce, our lawyers are in a conference room setting, in a format where they are talking to a mock client. We write a script and utilize an actor as the client, who has a legal problem. The lawyers and the actor interact similar to the way an initial consult would occur, with a realistic conversation, utilizing a Q&A back and forth. We add humor and show the viewer that the lawyers are approachable.

ES: I think there’s something really there. What’s the near term objective for LawTake?

SN: For now, our objective is to get 500 videos and 500 documents, however long it takes. The operating costs of the company are pretty low, so we’ll keep going until we get to that point. In terms

of revenue, I’d have to defer to our CFO.

ES: What’s the long-term objective? Is getting acquired lurking in the background?

SN: Yeah, definitely! Selling your company, doing an IPO, these are really huge successes for any entrepreneur. For now, though, it feels really good that people are using the site and it’s making people happy. I have no complaints.

ES: Let’s talk about your story as an entrepreneur in this legal technology startup space. How did you get started? How did you form your team?

SN: I had worked for two startups and worked at two law firms, and I still practice law today. One of my friends said that I should I come up with videos to help students study for the bar, but based on my experiences, it would be better to make videos for potential clients.

I made other contacts, some of whom are now on our team, and realized that I had a network of people who could help. One of my family friends makes legal websites. Another was able to help put together videos. With this network that was right here, I couldn’t believe that someone else hadn’t already done something like this. I got seed funding from family and friends and we started to  pull it together. In terms of my team, having mentors – and having your own mentees – is really important for me, even as an attorney. But you have to make your own decisions. You can’t be a perfectionist sometimes, you have to get something that works, and things have to get done.

ES: What about the risk that is required to do something like this?

SN: I’m a prudent risk-taker. With your own startup, you have to be really optimistic, which is different than when I counsel clients as an attorney. With clients you have to advise them on their risks  and let them make their own decisions. But with your own business, you have to believe in it. You can also keep your costs low, just like you would in legal practice. That’s why it’s prudent risk-

taking.

ES: Any final words of advice?

SN: In doing a startup, it takes a lot longer than you think, and you need more money than you think. So if it’s possible, it’s worth trying to keep your day job and do something like this on the side.

Oh, and also, any entrepreneur should not only read The Art of the Start and The Lean Startup, but also Angel Investing, written by the founder of Gust, where startups get connected with investors.  The book discusses what angel investors are looking for, how they evaluate profitability, and why only the top 25% of ventures even get considered and 75% should never be funded, while only 2.5% actually get funding. It’s a good book to get perspective on what investors are looking for and how to get investment into your company.

Read More : abovethelaw.com/2015/07/alt-legal-why-is-there-no-youtube-for-legal/

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Legal challenge over export of Beit paintings settled

Source     : Irish Times
By            : Mary Carolan
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

An Old Master painting, by David Teniers the Younger (1610-1690), from Russborough House was withdrawn from the auction.

A legal challenge by An Taisce alleging export licences were unlawfully issued by the National Gallery of Ireland for a number of valuable paintings has been settled. The settlement terms include consent by the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to a court declaration the Minister was not entitled to delegate to the National Gallery the ministerial power to issue such licences. That delegation was made in 1985 by the then Minister for the Arts, a spokeswoman for the current Minister, Heather Humphreys, said in a statement after the court hearing. The Minister has taken steps to address the legal issues raised concerning the granting of export licences, the statement added.” Under the settlement,the Minister and the Gallery also consented to a further declaration that the granting of the export licences was made in excess of the authority of the Gallery under the Documents and Pictures (Regulation of Export) Act 1945.

The Minister has also agreed to pay the costs of the action. Sara Moorhead SC, for An Taisce, told the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, she was happy to say the case had settled on those terms. Nuala Butler SC confirmed the Minister’s consent to the orders and to pay the costs. The judge made the declarations sought and struck out the proceedings, initiated last month when some the paintings were due to be put up for sale at auction in London. Most were later withdrawn from auction. After the case was initiated, An Taisce said it had clarified Portrait of a Monk, by Rubens, had been returned to Ireland. Two paintings by John Atkinson Grimshaw were sold while several others, described as representing “very important examples” of Flemish, Dutch and Venetian art, were withdrawn from auction. Previously, the court wad told the works are part of the collection of Sir Alfred Beit and include two oil sketches by Peter Paul Rubens, one entitled Head of a Bearded Man.

In an affidavit, John Loughman, senior lecturer in UCD’s School of Art, History and Cultural Policy, said the works are “part of Ireland’s rich cultural patrimony” and their loss to Ireland’s cultural heritage would be “enormous”. In the action, An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, claimed 10 paintings were unlawfully exported out of Ireland last March in breach of the provisions of the 1945 Act. Its judicial review proceedings was brought against the Governors and Guardians of the National Gallery of Ireland and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The Alfred Beit Foundation, and Christie, Manson and Woods Ltd, trading as Christie’s, of St James’, London, were also made notice parties to the proceedings. An Taisce alleged a licence of March 16th, 2015 granted by the National Gallery of Ireland to the Irish branch of London-based fine art auction house Christie’s, acting as agent of the Afred Beit Foundation, Russborough House, Co Wicklow, for export of the paintings to the UK was made in excess of the powers of the Gallery.

The appropriate authority for the granting of such licences is the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and she has no power to delegate that authority, it was claimed. Despite “numerous” requests for clarification about the alleged act of delegation, An Taisce said it had been unable to identify how that was achieved. It did not appear the delegation was achieved by primary or secondary legislation and the relevant paintings were unlawfully exported out of Ireland, it was claimed. It was alleged that an EC Council Regulation of 2009 requires that paintings in the territory of a member state must be granted an export licence by that State. Where paintings are legally exported from one member state to another, the latter state is entitled to issue an export licence, it claims. While three paintings at issue were previously exported to Hong Kong and New York, they were not granted an export licence from the Minister and were not legally exported to another member state, it was alleged.

Read More :  irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/legal-challenge-over-export-of-beit-paintings-settled-1.2299740

Bail Bond Sanford – Federal appeals court dismisses legal challenge to California’s shark fin ban; soup a delicacy

Source     : Fox News
By            : Associated Press
Category : Bail Bond Sanford, Sanford Bail Bond

Federal appeals court dismisses legal challenge to California’s shark fin ban; soup a delicacy

A federal appeals court Monday dismissed a legal challenge to a California law banning the sale, distribution and possession of shark fins. The legislation does not conflict with a 19th century law that gives federal officials authority to manage shark fishing off the California coast or significantly interfere with interstate commerce, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. The 2-1 ruling upheld a lower court decision tossing the lawsuit brought by the Chinatown Neighborhood Association and Asian Americans for Political Advancement, a political action committee.

The groups had argued that the ban — passed in 2011 — unfairly targeted the Chinese community, which considers shark fin soup a delicacy. Shark finning is the practice of removing the fins from a living shark, leaving the animal to die. Joseph Breall, an attorney for the groups, said they were reviewing their options and had not yet decided whether to appeal. He said he was heartened by the dissenting opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who said the plaintiffs should have been allowed to amend their lawsuit.

The plaintiffs had argued on appeal that the shark fin law conflicted with the federal law intended to manage shark fishing off the California coast. The majority in the 9th Circuit ruling, however, said the federal law has no requirement that a certain number of sharks be harvested, and even if it did, the California law still allowed sharks to be taken for purposes other than obtaining their fins.

The federal law, additionally, envisions a broad role for states in crafting fishery management plans, and, like California’s ban, makes conservation paramount, the court said. The 9th Circuit also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that the ban illegally interfered with trade in shark fins between California and other states and the flow of shark fins between states through California. “The Shark Fin Law does not interfere with activity that is inherently national or that requires a uniform system of regulation,” Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote. “The purpose of the Shark Fin Law is to conserve state resources, prevent animal cruelty, and protect wildlife and public health. These are legitimate matters of local concern.”

Read More :  foxnews.com/leisure/2015/07/27/federal-appeals-court-dismisses-legal-challenge-to-california-shark-fin-ban/

Bondsman in Seminole county – Legal aid restrictions delaying prisoners’ rehabilitation, court told

Source     : The Guardian
By            : Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole county

Legal aid restrictions delaying prisoners’ rehabilitation, court told

Thousands of prisoners are being prevented from starting rehabilitation because they are denied legal aid for parole board hearings, the court of appeal has been told. In a challenge to restrictions imposed by the coalition government, lawyers for two charities said the present system was “inherently unfair” and provided no support even for inmates who are incapable of representing themselves. The appeal, brought jointly by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoners’ Advice Service, is the latest in a series of attempts to reverse cuts that have removed more than £600m from the criminal and civil legal aid budget. It is argued that taxpayers are now having to pay to keep prisoners inside for longer than is necessary.

Concerns over the removal of legal aid from internal prison hearings have focused on problems that inmates have in moving to open prisons so they can begin courses that pave the way to eventual release. It particularly affects prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. “Without a move to open conditions, a standard indeterminate-sentence prisoner will almost certainly never be released,” the charities’ submission to the court said. “At the heart of parole board decisions in relation to indeterminate-sentence prisoners is the question of risk. To assist the parole board in reaching a decision on risk, expert evidence from psychiatrists or psychologists is always presented by the secretary of state. Equality of arms [equal representation] can only be secured if the prisoner can present his own independent expert report, the parole board having no power or funds to commission its own.”

Phillippa Kaufmann QC, representing the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prisoner Advisory service, said: “This is systematic unfairness. All areas of prison law have been removed from the scope of legal aid. “Many prisoners cannot access the process themselves. Prisoners live in a closed world. They can’t access outside resources. They can’t go to the Citizens Advice Bureau. The complaints systems and the ombudsman system do not provide the fairness that is lacking [in the current system].” She said there was no provision for funding in exceptional cases. “There’s no flexibility here. Nothing can be done.” Outside the court, Deborah Russo, from the Prisoner Advice Service, said: “Prisoners are ending up spending more time inside, so it costs the taxpayer more. Pre-tariff prisoners cannot get legal aid and therefore can’t be represented at parole board hearings. It can hinder their progress. Life-sentence prisoners are unrepresented and get stuck in the system.”

Simon Creighton, of the law firm Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, which is representing the charities, said: “Restrictions to legal aid for prisoners are deeply unfair as there is no safety net of ‘exceptional funding’. However, they also unlikely to save costs or enhance public protection as they will result in people spending longer in prison and missing out on offending behaviour courses and rehabilitative work.” The Legal Aid Agency argues that inmates who have not yet served their sentence tariff are not entitled to legal aid because their liberty is not at stake. The Ministry of Justice maintains that the internal prison complaints system and the prisons ombudsman are capable of dealing with the problem.  The court of appeal reserved judgment.

Read More : theguardian.com/law/2015/jul/07/legal-aid-restrictions-delaying-prisoners-rehabilitation-court

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Accused Batterers Get Free Attorneys. Domestic Violence Victims Don’t

Source     : Slate
By            : Denise Grab
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Accused Batterers Get Free Attorneys. Domestic Violence Victims Don’t. That Needs to Change.

When domestic violence cases make their way through the legal system, accused batterers have the right to a free court-appointed attorney in criminal cases. But a domestic violence survivor isn’t assured access to reduced-cost legal services. It’s a problematic imbalance, and correcting it could likely reduce the rate of domestic violence. Giving accused batterers free legal representation it is hardly controversial—our justice system prioritizes a fair defense for the accused. But what if we took the additional step of subsidizing legal services for domestic violence survivors?

For survivors, having an attorney can increase the likelihood of obtaining a civil restraining order from 32 percent to 86 percent. Restraining orders, in turn, can reduce the occurrence of violence and help survivors feel safer and more empowered in their relationships and lives. Attorneys can also assist with other legal issues, such as child custody, divorce, housing, and government benefits, which may be holding survivors back from leaving abusive relationships. However, domestic violence survivors are frequently not in a position to hire their own attorneys. Victims in low-income households experience five times the rate of domestic abuse of victims in higher-income households. Studies show that low-income individuals are often unable to obtain the legal services they need or desire, with only half of those seeking legal aid being able to be served and more than 70 percent of the legal issues faced by low-income individuals not finding their way to the justice system. An abusive partner may also control the finances in a relationship, which could make it more difficult for a survivor to collect the funds needed to hire a lawyer.

So what would a solution look like? Dozens of legal aid groups around the country already focus on helping survivors, often with amazing results. If their work was scaled up, with states or municipalities offering free or reduced-cost legal assistance for those reporting abuse, evidence suggests that domestic violence rates would fall, along with the share of costs borne by the municipalities. New York City alone spends more than $44 million per year responding to reports of domestic violence, and arresting, prosecuting, and supervising batterers. Costs for health care and homeless services would also likely fall—studies indicate that half of all homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence, and nearly 38 percent of all victims of domestic violence become homeless at some point in their lives. Given the probable cost savings, funding for civil legal assistance would likely pay for itself in many communities. Our society foots the bill when someone accused of a heinous crime can’t afford a lawyer, because we don’t want anyone to be failed by the justice system. But many victims of abuse lack the resources to access the justice system in the first place. Civil legal assistance could put them on equal footing with their abusers, saving both costs and lives in the process.

Read More : slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/23/free_legal_representation_for_domestic_violence_victims_level_ground_for.html

Sanford Bail Bond – New Law To Help Domestic Violence Victims Goes Into Effect In Arkansas

Source    :  5 News Online
By            : Aubry Killionss
Category : Sanford Bail Bond, Bondsman in Seminole County

New Law To Help Domestic Violence Victims Goes Into Effect In Arkansas

A new law aimed at protecting domestic violence victims who are at risk of being seriously injured or killed by a partner went into effect Wednesday (July 22). Laura’s Law is named after Laura Webb who pushed for the measure after she became a victim of domestic violence. “When I saw the truck coming at me, it was rather stunning to think the person who promised to love, honor and cherish me was attempting to kill me,” Webb said. Webb said she was attacked by her ex-husband on April 7, 2012 at Mount Magazine State Park.

“He chose to run over me with a vehicle,” she said. “He ran into a tree then he backed up over the tree, over me, and then he drove back over me and left.” Webb said her injuries were severe. “The most significant injury was a flailed chest,” Webb said. “My right rib cage was crushed, eight of my ribs were crushed in multiple places, and there were three ribs crushed on my left side. I had injuries to my kidneys. They almost shut down. I had head injuries, leg injuries. I had burns, third-degree burns on my shoulder.”

Three years later, Laura’s Law went into effect to help prevent something like this from happening to someone else. “This is just a start,” Webb said. “There’s still more work for us to do, but it’s an extremely proud moment for the state of Arkansas.” Under Laura’s Law, law enforcement authorities who respond to domestic violence will ask the victim a series of questions to assess the potential for danger. For an example of the Laura’s Law assessment form from the Sebastian County Sheriff’s Office, click here. Webb hopes the law that has been named after her will help get victims the help they need before it is too late. Studies show one in three women in the U.S. will be victims of domestic violence.

Read More : 5newsonline.com/2015/07/22/new-law-to-help-domestic-violence-victims-goes-into-effect-in-arkansas/

Bondsman in Seminole county – Supreme Court Allows Nationwide Health Care Subsidies

Source    :  New York Times
By            :  ADAM LIPTAK
Category :  Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole county

Supreme Court Allows Nationwide Health Care Subsidies

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance, a sweeping vindication that endorsed the larger purpose of Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The 6-to-3 ruling means that it is all but certain that the Affordable Care Act will survive after Mr. Obama leaves office in 2017. For the second time in three years, the law survived an encounter with the Supreme Court. But the court’s tone was different this time. The first decision, in 2012, was fractured and grudging, while Thursday’s ruling was more assertive. “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a united six-justice majority. In 2012’s closely divided decision, Chief Justice Roberts also wrote the controlling opinion, but that time no other justice joined it in full.

In dissent on Thursday, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority’s reasoning “quite absurd” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery.” He announced his dissent from the bench, a sign of bitter disagreement. His summary was laced with notes of incredulity and sarcasm, sometimes drawing amused murmurs in the courtroom as he described the “interpretive somersaults” he said the majority had performed to reach the decision. “We really should start calling this law Scotus-care,” Justice Scalia said, to laughter from the audience. In a hastily arranged appearance in the Rose Garden on Thursday morning, a triumphant Mr. Obama praised the ruling. “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said, adding: “What we’re not going to do is unravel what has now been woven into the fabric of America.”

The ruling was a blow to Republicans, who have been trying to gut the law since it was enacted. But House Speaker John A. Boehner vowed that the political fight against it would continue. “The problem with Obamacare is still fundamentally the same: The law is broken,” Mr. Boehner said. “It’s raising costs for American families, it’s raising costs for small businesses and it’s just fundamentally broken. And we’re going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to put the American people back in charge of their health care and not the federal government.” The case concerned a central part of the Affordable Care Act that created marketplaces, known as exchanges, to allow people who lack insurance to shop for individual health plans. Some states set up their own exchanges, but about three dozen allowed the federal government to step in to run them. Across the nation, about 85 percent of customers using the exchanges qualify for subsidies to help pay for coverage, based on their income.

The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.” A legal victory for the plaintiffs, lawyers for the administration said, would have affected more than six million people and created havoc in the insurance markets and undermined the law. Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Read More : nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – State Supreme Court defines legal separation in divorce cases

Source    :  SF Gate
By            : Kale Williams
Category : Bail Bonds Sanford, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

State Supreme Court defines legal separation in divorce cases

Married couples going through a divorce are not considered legally separated until one moves out of the house, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting arguments that other factors should play a role in dividing property and income in divorce proceedings. The unanimous ruling reinforces a “bright-line rule,” which effectively makes the establishment of individual residences when a marriage breaks up the minimum requirement for the legal definition of when a couple is separated and income and property are no longer shared. “A bright-line rule … promotes fairness by providing a measure of predictability to the parties and their attorney, as well as clear guidance to judges,” Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote. “It reduces the potential for manipulation of a more elastic standard by the higher earner in situations of significant income disparity.” The case involved a former Castro Valley couple, who went to court in a dispute over financial support after their marriage fell apart. Sheryl Davis claimed she and her husband, Xavier Davis, formally separated in 2006, when she declared the marriage over and they began living mostly separate lives, but under the same roof.

Xavier Davis contended that the separation began in 2011, when she moved out of their house. A Superior Court judge and the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco agreed with Sheryl Davis. But the Supreme Court disagreed. “Living in separate residences is an indispensable threshold requirement for a finding that spouses are living ‘separate and apart’ for purposes” of dividing property, the court said. The ruling makes Xavier Davis eligible to receive a share of his wife’s income for the previous five years, a period in which she made more money than he did. Under the state’s community-property law, spouses must share their income and their jointly acquired property until they separate. Stephanie Finelli, who represented him, said that, while other factors could come into play, such as economic considerations and child care, the justices were fair in putting residence at the top of the list of priorities.

“I think it was the right decision,” Finelli said. “In a lot of cases, it takes more than separate residences to decide separation, but this makes clear that separate residences are the threshold requirement.” Lilia Duchrow, who represented Sheryl Davis, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday. She argued to the court that the bright-line rule was overly simplistic, could lead to harsh and unintended results — especially in cases where parents wish to remain in the same house for the benefit of their children — and failed to consider the economic factors of having to find a new home. “A typical spouse in California, for example, may face further financial difficulties by being required to move out of the marital residence as a prerequisite to establishing the date of separation rather than intentionally and meaningfully living as roommates at the same residence,” she told the court. The justices were not swayed, noting that Duchrow’s interpretation lent itself to ambiguity.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Goodwin Liu wrote that there could be circumstances in which a divorced couple could live under the same roof and be considered “separate and living apart.” “The spouses must have a living arrangement that clearly and objectively signals a complete and final termination of the marital relationship,” he wrote. “Neither the Legislature nor this court has foreclosed the possibility that such a living situation may occur within a single dwelling.”The Davises married in 1993, but after six years and two children, their union became frayed — they stopped sleeping together, cut back on their social activities and opened separate savings accounts. In mid-2006, Sheryl Davis told her husband their marriage was over, took him off their credit card and gave him a ledger of household expenses to be paid jointly.

She then took a job in Los Angeles, where she spent three to five nights a week, and in December 2008 filed for divorce. The couple continued to live in their home in Castro Valley, however, until Sheryl Davis moved out in July 2011. Rick Banks, a family and constitutional law professor at Stanford, said it seemed the justices were looking to provide some clarity to divorce proceedings, which can often become contentious ordeals. “One of the problems with family law is that it can turn into a lot of ‘he said, she said,’” Banks said. “It sounds like the court decided that the benefits of the bright-line rule ultimately outweighed the hardships in most cases, and that seems like a reasonable decision.”

Read More : sfgate.com/news/article/State-Supreme-Court-defines-legal-separation-in-6395912.php

Sanford Bail Bond – Ripping music and films illegal again after High Court overturns new law

Source     : BBC UK
By            : BBC_Newsbeat – PR
Category : Sanford Bail Bond, Bondsman in Seminole County

Ripping music and films illegal again after High Court overturns new law

It’s now illegal – again – to copy CDs or DVDs you’ve bought to put onto your MP3 player, your computer or other devices. The government had introduced a new law in October last year meaning it was legal to transfer music into your home library. But that law has been overturned in the High Court. It’s after a legal challenge from Basca, the Musicians’ Union, and industry representatives UK Music. It’s unclear how the change will be enforced.

Court action was rare under the previous law and the industry often turned a blind eye to people copying data for personal use. The new ruling, which overturns the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014, affects CDs, MP3s, DVDs, Blu-rays and e-books.
It means consumers can’t technically copy a CD they own and use one version in the car and another at home.
The law brought in last October made it legal to make back-ups for personal use but it always remained an offence to share those copies with friends or family or to sell on that music or data.

The decision does not include joke or parody versions of hit songs. 2010’s Newport State of Mind, a Welsh themed send-up of Jay-Z and Alicia Keys’ Empire State of Mind, was removed from YouTube in August of that year after a copyright claim by EMI Publishing. Mash-ups by the likes of Cassetteboy will also be affected by the changes. CEO of UK Music, Jo Dipple said: “Last month, the High Court agreed with us that government acted unlawfully when it introduced an exception to copyright for private copying without fair compensation. “We therefore welcome the court’s decision today to quash the existing regulations.

“It is vitally important that fairness for songwriters, composers and performers is written into the law. “My members’ music defines this country. It is only right that government gives us the standard of legislation our music deserves. “We want to work with government so this can be achieved.” The Musicians’ Union also took part in the action. A judge ruled that the government was wrong legally when it decided not to introduce a compensation scheme for songwriters, musicians and other rights holders who face losses as a result of their copyright being infringed. UK Music estimated the new regulations, without a compensation scheme, would result in loss of revenues for rights owners in the creative sector of £58m a year. The change in the law also has implications for teachers who use copyright materials on interactive whiteboards and writers who quote other sources.

Read More : bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33566933/ripping-music-and-films-illegal-again-after-high-court-overturns-new-law