Seminole County Bail Bonds – Glencore launches legal bid to lower Newcastle port access fees

Source     : The Guardian
By            : Paul Farrell
Category : Seminole County Bail Bonds, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

Glencore launches legal bid to lower Newcastle port access fees

The mining company Glencore has launched a legal bid against the Australian government to lower port access fees. In recently submitted filings before the Australian Competition Tribunal, Glencore Coal complained that increased fees to enter the newly privatised Newcastle port, which produces more than 170m tonnes of saleable coal a year, will “materially impact on the profit margins of coal producers”.

The challenge comes amid diminished share prices for the multinational company and job cuts in its zinc production operations around the world. Their challenge followed the New South Wales’s government decision to privatise the Newcastle port as part of a joint venture between Hastings Fund Management and China Merchants. The venture quickly increased port fees by between 40 per cent and 60 per cent for vessels to access the shipping channel.

The appeal to the Australian Competition Tribunal concerns a decision by the then acting treasurer, Mathias Cormann, in 2015 when he ruled out “declaring” the port’s fees. Had Cormann ruled in Glencore’s favour, this would have allowed it to refer the access dispute to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for arbitration and potentially allow Glencore to push for the port fees to be lowered.

Although the tribunal battle will focus on technical issues surrounding competition laws, it touches on two critical policy areas for the Australian government; the privatisation of state assets and concerns about price increases, and the long-term viability of coalmining ventures in Australia. In the tribunal documents Glencore argues that the port’s “unconstrained price” and the monopoly it holds over granting access to the port “creates uncertainty for producers and acquirers of Hunter Valley coal”.

The port’s “monolopy power” will “materially impact on the profit margins of coal producers [miners] operating in the Hunter Valley, particularly in the current operating environment given many mines are cash flow negative”. The Australian government has not yet responded to the application before the tribunal. The case will also be a test of the more limited types of review that can be conducted by the Australian Competition Tribunal in what are known as “access” cases after new legislation passed in 2012. Glencore has faced financial difficulties after the company was floated on the stock market in 2011. While the share price began high, it has dropped considerably following the collapse of commodity prices.

Read more : theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/29/glencore-launches-legal-bid-to-lower-newcastle-port-access-fees

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – Bankruptcy Filing Shows Arch Coal Funding for Climate Denial Legal Group

Source    :  PR Watch
By            :  Nick Surgey
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Bankruptcy Filing Shows Arch Coal Funding for Climate Denial Legal Group

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), a group best known for filing lawsuits seeking climate scientists’ personal emails, has secretly received funding from Arch Coal, one of the largest coal producers in the United States. The funding is revealed in documents recently filed as part of the Arch Coal bankruptcy proceedings which list the coal company’s creditors. The Arch funding is revealed just months after Alpha Natural Resources, another coal company facing bankruptcy, was identified by The Intercept as providing funding to a group closely connected to E&E Legal, the Free Market Law Clinic, as well as funding directly to E&E Legal’s lawyer, Chris Horner. The two organizations share staff and fellows, often working together to bring lawsuits. Although E&E Legal is listed as a creditor, the Arch court filing does not provide any other details that would indicate the size of the funding nor when any payment or payments were made.

E&E Legal has developed a niche for filing voluminous requests for the emails of climate scientists working at state universities, including their personal emails and for work not yet completed or ready for publication. When E&E Legal doesn’t get everything it asks for, it will typically file a lawsuit and take the scientist and university to court. The Union of Concerned Scientists has said that E&E Legal’s tactics amount to the harassment of climate scientists. In one such case, E&E Legal requested fully 13 years of emails from climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck based at the University of Arizona. The university and the scientists handed over significant quantities of emails, but withheld thousands of others which they said included “prepublication data and drafts.” E&E Legal filed a lawsuit against the scientists and the university. The scientists eventually won their case in the Arizona Superior Court but it is pending review by the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Other leading climate scientists, including Michael Mann, James Hansen, and Katharine Hayhoe have also been subject to lawsuits from E&E Legal. “The volume and frequency of the requests from EELI are designed to antagonize leading climate scientists, wasting their time in drawn out and frustrating lawsuits. They frankly have better things to do, and that’s obviously the point of E&E Legal’s campaign” Brendan DeMelle of DeSmogBlog, which tracks and reports on climate change denial groups told CMD by email. Chris Horner, E&E Legal Senior Legal Fellow, is the group’s lead on its work seeking scientists emails. In 2014, Horner received $110,000 from a group closely tied to E&E Legal, the Free Market Law Clinic, according to the most recently available tax filings for that organization. David Schnare, General Counsel at E&E Legal, is also the Director at the Free Market Law Clinic.

The bankruptcy filings for Alpha Natural Resources, revealed by The Intercept, showed direct support from that coal company to Chris Horner personally, as well as to the Free Market Law Clinic. In 2015, CMD obtained an invitation and other materials from a private and highly secretive annual coal summit, hosted by the CEOs of five coal companies, including both Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources, as well as Alliance Resource Partners, Drummond Company, and United Coal Company. Chris Horner was a speaker at the event, which also included then Republican presidential front runner, Jeb Bush. After the event, attendees received an email signed by each of the five coal company CEOs which hinted at the coal funding for Horner’s work: “As the ‘war on coal’ continues, I trust that the commitment we have made to support Chris Horner’s work will eventually create great awareness of the illegal tactics being employed to pass laws that are intended to destroy our industry.”

That email, suggests that the coal funding of Chris Horner’s work may extend even beyond Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources. “It’s very telling to confirm that E&E Legal has received Arch Coal funding since their attacks on climate science and harassment of scientists are just what the coal industry is counting on to survive,” Brendan DeMelle of DeSmogBlog told CMD. The Energy & Environment Legal Institute’s General Counsel, David Schnare, did not respond to numerous requests to comment for this article.

Read more at:  prwatch.org/news/2016/02/13049/bankruptcy-documents-indicate-arch-coal-funding-climate-denial-legal-group

Bail Bond Sanford – Makerbot prepares legal action against profiteers on eBay

Source     : Biz Journals
By            : Michael del Castillo
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Makerboat prepares legal action against profiteers on eBay

3D printing company Makerbot today published its official response to an ongoing debate over whether or not an account holder on eBay can charge to print files it freely downloads from Thingiverse. At the core of the argument — which is getting increasingly heated, and increasingly legal-sounding — is an old debate (confusion) over exactly how Creative Commons licenses work. A precedent-setting case may be on the way.

“We firmly oppose this kind of use of our talented community’s creations,” Makerbot wrote in today’s post. “To put it simply, we see such violations as a direct attack on the very goal of Thingiverse and the Creative Commons (CC) framework.” Thinginverse is Brooklyn-based Makerbot’s platform for sharing user-generated CAD files which can then be used to print three-dimensional objects that last October crossed the 1 million uploads milestone.

Members can choose from a wide range of Creative Commons licenses designed to give them legal control over who, how, and when different files may be reproduced, modified, or even sold. But one company, Just 3D Print, has taken to selling prints derived from these files on eBay in a way that’s gathered the ire of many in the 3D printing community. “Some claim that the Creative Commons license protects designers who upload their CAD creations online. This is false,” a representative of the company wrote to Michael Weinberg, president of the Open Source Hardware Association. “The CC license directly contradicts existing United States IP law and has never been challenged in a United States Court.”

For his part, Weinberg, who also works at New York City-based Shapeways, has written a series of posts trying to bring the dispute to a peacable resolution, adding a disclaimer that his writing was not legal advice. “Thingiverse designers are making their works available to the public explicitly conditioned on a license,” wrote Weinberg in January. “While the terms of the license may be different, as a legal tool it is identical to what governs every movie available for streaming on Netflix.”

Read More : bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2016/02/24/makerbot-prepares-legal-action-against-profiteers.html

Sanford Bail Bond – Hollywood Legal Battle Erupts Over Facial Animation Technology

Source    :  New York Times
By            :  NICK WINGFIELD
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Hollywood Legal Battle Erupts Over Facial Animation Technology

A technology used to animate the faces of digital superheroes in “Deadpool” and “Avengers: Age of Ultron” is at the center of a legal battle that may cause some super headaches in Hollywood. The spat is over who owns a novel method of electronically capturing the performances of human actors, including every smile and twitch of their facial muscles, and using the data to bring computer-generated characters to life on the screen. The technology, called Mova, won a technical Academy Award for a group of developers last year. This month, Rearden, the technology incubator in San Francisco that developed Mova, countersued a Chinese company that has claimed ownership of the technology. Rearden, founded by the Silicon Valley serial entrepreneur Steve Perlman, is claiming a string of patent and copyright violations.

It has asked a judge to award it financial damages and block the distribution of movies and other entertainment that it claims have been made by infringing on Mova patents and trademarks. Travis W. Thomas, an intellectual-property lawyer at Baker Botts, said it was conceivable that a court could eventually block the distribution of the movies, but added that it was a “long shot” for Rearden. Rearden’s suit follows one from the Chinese company that has claimed ownership of Mova, Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Company. Shenzhenshi, which is affiliated with the well-known Hollywood visual effects company Digital Domain, sued Rearden last February as both parties began to tangle over who owned the technology. It is now commonplace for movie and game makers to animate characters through motion capture, which typically involves placing markers all over the bodies of actors so cameras and software can record their movements. Nearly a decade ago, Mr. Perlman introduced Mova, which was designed to more faithfully capture the subtleties of facial expressions.

Mova did this by dusting the faces of actors with phosphorescent makeup and using customized hardware and software to capture the performances and convert them into data. Mova was used to help Brad Pitt’s character in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” appear to age in reverse, and was a part of the effects in “Gravity,” “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” and many others. The strange story of how Mova’s ownership came to be contested resembles the twists and turns of a movie plot. Mr. Perlman founded and controlled the online game start-up OnLive, which he merged with Mova. But as the start-up struggled, he left in 2012. According to the countersuit against Shenzhenshi that Rearden filed this month, OnLive decided to sell Mova’s assets later that year, and Mr. Perlman decided to acquire them from OnLive’s controlling investor.

He tasked a Rearden employee who worked on Mova motion capture projects, Greg LaSalle, with managing the process. But Mr. LaSalle negotiated to sell Mova’s assets improperly to Digital Domain, Mr. Perlman said in the suit, which was filed in United States District Court in San Francisco. Shenzhenshi said in its lawsuit last year that it, in fact, acquired Mova in May 2013 and that it bought the technology legitimately from Mr. LaSalle for an undisclosed amount. The Chinese company said Mr. Perlman had previously been unable to make a successful business out of Mova and that he encouraged Mr. LaSalle to try to salvage it on his own. Mr. Perlman’s later desire to regain control of Mova stemmed from “a severe bout of ‘seller’s remorse’ ” after widespread publicity about the Academy Award related to the technology, Shenzhenshi said in its suit. Shenzhenshi is “closely related” to Digital Domain and its Hong Kong-based parent company, Digital Domain Holdings, Rearden said in its countersuit.

Lawyers for Shenzhenshi did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Mr. LaSalle now works for Digital Domain, where he is listed as director of visual development. A spokesman for Digital Domain did not respond to requests for comment, and Mr. LaSalle could not be reached. In recent interviews about “Deadpool,” one of the year’s biggest hits, Mr. LaSalle has said he personally performed the facial expressions that animated the metallic superhero Colossus in the movie. Mr. Perlman — who sold the set-top box start-up WebTV to Microsoft in the 1990s for more than $500 million and now runs a wireless start-up — declined to comment about the litigation. A news release that Rearden planned to release on Wednesday about its countersuit identified movies with billions of dollars in collective box-office receipts that it said did not have a legitimate license to use Mova’s technology, including “Deadpool,” “Terminator Genisys” and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” Alex V. Chachkes, an intellectual-property lawyer at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, said he saw little chance that Rearden could prevent big movies that were created using Mova from being distributed, in part because courts tend to shy away from blocking the release of movies out of concerns about the First Amendment. It is more likely that Rearden could disrupt movie projects that Digital Domain is working on if a court ultimately sides with it, he said. “There’s roughly zero chance they could do anything to slow down the ‘Deadpool’ juggernaut,” Mr. Chachkes said.

Read More : nytimes.com/2016/02/24/technology/hollywood-legal-battle-erupts-over-facial-animation-technology.html

Bondsman in Seminole County – Controversy At Harvard Law Over The Bluebook?

Source     : Above The Law
By            : Kathryn Rubino
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Controversy At Harvard Law Over The Bluebook

We’ve extensively covered the burgeoning support for Baby Blue, the free, online, open-source rival of ultimate legal citation guide, The Bluebook. Though students at top law schools, Yale and NYU, have openly supported Baby Blue, the future isn’t all sunshine and roses for the online guide. It seems Santa brought the creators of Baby Blue, Carl Malamud of Public.Resource.Org and NYU Professor Christopher Sprigman, a little bit of coal in their stocking. On Christmas Eve, they received a letter from Ropes & Gray representing Harvard Law Review Association (holders of The Bluebook copyright) informing them of a potential trademark violation over the name Baby Blue to go along with their copyright claims. While this legal showdown delayed the publication of Baby Blue, it didn’t stop it. But the specter of litigation has continued to hang over the project.

Law students from Yale and NYU have signed petitions supporting the Baby Blue future of legal citations, and now Harvard Law Students have joined the party. The language of the petition takes a lot of inspiration from those already in circulation, but it goes out of its way to recognize the unique power of voices from Harvard:

At Harvard Law, one of the schools affiliated with a publication claiming a copyright interest in the Bluebook, we have a special obligation to make this system accessible. When Baby Blue enters a period of public review, we look forward to offering our help and feedback. We encourage law students across the country to join us.

That’s not the only voice of discontent. The Harvard Law Record also recently published an op-ed critical of the legal strategy employed by Harvard Law Review Association:

[T]he tactics employed by the HLR Association’s counsel in dealing with Mr. Malamud and Prof. Sprigman are deplorable. The Harvard Law Review claims to be an organization that promotes knowledge and access to legal scholarship. It is a venerated part of the traditions of Harvard Law School. But these actions by the Harvard Law Review speak of competition and not of justice.

What’s worse is that BabyBlue is no threat to the funding of the Harvard Law Review. Even a brief glance at the history of the Internet suggests that in a world where prestige matters, where students and practitioners alike begun their practice with the Bluebook, it is certainly possible to compete with free. However, any legal action against BabyBlue for copyright or trademark infringement will retrench the narrative that the Harvard Law Review Association is more interested in its own profits than in access to legal citation. And given a choice between an implementation of a system that is open and freely available, like BabyBlue, and one that has pursued legal action to silence competing implementations, many users may choose to move away from the Bluebook.

Read More :  abovethelaw.com/2016/02/controversy-at-harvard-law-over-the-bluebook/

Seminole County Bail Bonds – High Court rules ban on Bersih T-shirts legal

Source     : Star Media Group Berhad
By            : P. Divakaran
Category : Seminole County Bail Bonds, Bail Bondsman in Sanford

High Court rules ban on Bersih T-shirts legal

The High Court here has ruled that the Home Minster acted appropriately when issuing an order to ban Bersih 4 T-shirts last year. The decision comes after Bersih 4 organisers challenged the Government’s ban on the yellow Bersih 4 T-shirts in court. In his judgement, Judge Datuk Haji Mohd Yazid Haji Mustafa said that Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahamd Zahid Hamidi did not act illegally and had followed relevant procedures when issuing the order.

He concluded that the Minister had the discretion under the law, his powers were not exercised unreasonably and did not suffer from any procedural wrongdoing when issuing the ban. Bersih 4 lawyer New Sin Yew expressed disappointment over the decision. “So everybody who owns a Bersih 4 T-shirt or anything to do with the rally are potentially liable under Section 8 of the PPPA (Printing Press and Publications Act 1984),” he said.

Bersih 4 chairperson Maria Chin Abdullah told reporters that the organisers would appeal the decision. She said that the yellow T-shirt did not represent violence or any call to riot but merely an expression of hope for a better Malaysia. Maria added that the decision by the High Court failed to recognise that every citizen had the right to freedom of expression.

In August, the Home Ministry issued an order banning Bersih 4 T-shirts and publications related to the Bersih 4 rally. The order, dated Aug 27, 2015 and signed by Dr Ahamd Zahid, comes under the Printing Presses and Publications (Control of Undesirable Publications) (No 22) Order 2015.

Read More : thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/02/19/high-court-rules-ban-on-bersih-t-shirts-legal/

Bail Bondsman in Sanford – FBI wants to set a legal precedent, not break into an iPhone

Source     : Reuters Blogs
By            : Matthew Gault
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

FBI wants to set a legal precedent, not break into an iPhone

The FBI wants Apple to give it the tools to break into the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorist Syed Farook. In a brave display on the company home page, Apple Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook refused. He was right to say no. If the Feds really wanted to, they have the skills necessary to break into that phone. This fight isn’t about gathering information on a terrorist. It’s about setting a legal precedent. That the FBI chose to push this issue with the San Bernardino case is telling. Few Americans, they are betting, care about Farook’s privacy. They must believe the public — and the courts — will support them here.

Cook said that Apple has helped the FBI during every step of its investigation. It has turned over all iPhone data that Farook backed up to the cloud. But the Feds want to access his phone and make sure they didn’t miss anything. To do this, they want Apple to build a backdoor into its own operating system. Apple’s iPhone, particularly the newer models, has sophisticated encryption technology, triggered by a PIN. Two specific security features make these smartphones particularly nasty to break into.

Cryptographic brute-force has long been one method of cracking any password. The hacker runs a program that spams every possible password combination at the encrypted device until it opens. Apple’s phones use either a four- or six-digit PIN. The four-digit PIN only allows for 9,999 different password combinations. The cracking program could run through those combinations in seconds. The six-digit PIN allows for a million combinations, and is only available on iPhones running the iOS 9 operating system and above. Farook’s phone runs iOS 9. Still, a computer could run through all the possible combinations in less than a minute and break into the device — if it weren’t an iPhone. Apple’s smartphones require users to enter passwords manually. That takes time. Worse for the would-be hacker is that the phone punishes you for failure. As any iPhone user who’s struggled to enter their PIN one-handed while, for example, walking along and chatting with a friend, knows, if you fail to enter your password too many times, the phone locks you out for a minute. The phone is programmed so that the lock-out time increases after multiple failures. Six failed attempts pushes the lock-out time to five minutes. After the ninth failed attempt, users have to wait an hour before they can try again. After the 10th failed attempt, the phone erases all its data. Meaning the cryptographic brute-force method just doesn’t work on iPhones, if you don’t manage to get lucky in the early going. Data encryption has come a long way in the past five years. One reason is tech giants such as Apple and Google now issue over-the-air updates to patch security issues in real time. When a tech company finds a flaw in its software, it pushes out an update as soon as possible to plug the hole.

The FBI is now asking Apple to create a special operating system that can be sent to Farook’s phone either locally or by over-the-air delivery, and then used to bypass Apple’s time delay and system wipe. This would allow federal agents to guess at the password as many times as they want. What the Feds have requested is possible with Farook’s older model iPhone 5C. On these phones, the operating system runs the security features and Apple could manipulate it through an update. The FBI says it is asking for this new tool just to breach the phone of one terrorist. But both Apple and many security experts recognize that the specialized operating system could be used as a backdoor into any older model iPhone on the planet.

This backdoor would not work on newer iPhones, however. There, security features live on a separate computer within the phone, called the secure enclave. And the secure enclave is just that — secure. Manipulating the phone’s operating system will not help would-be crackers break in. The use of a secure enclave is part of an advanced, smart design trend in encryption. It makes products so secure that even the manufacturer can’t bust into them. Yet some experts speculated that Apple may have left the iPhone’s enclave open for updates — and federal manipulation.
Washington, however, has other methods of extracting data from phones that don’t require passwords. The CIA, the National Security Agency and the FBI have been working on invasive and non-invasive methods of data extraction for more than a decade. Many security experts believe the intelligence agencies have devised unique solutions to problems just like the San Bernardino phone.

It’s possible, of course, for authorities to physically open the phone, pull out the computer chips and bombard them with lasers or radio frequencies to get at the information they need. But experts aren’t sure how much — if any — data would be lost in the process. But this San Bernardino case isn’t about getting information off of a shooter’s phone. It’s about setting a legal precedent. Cook and Apple are in a tricky position. One where Washington thinks that the American public will read the tech giant’s push-back as an endorsement of terrorism. Apple is betting the public and the courts are smarter than that.

Read More :  blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2016/02/17/the-fbi-wants-to-set-a-legal-precedent-not-break-into-an-iphone/

Bail Bond Sanford – No, Forking Bitcoin Won’t Land You in Legal Hot Water

Source     : CoinDesk
By            : Marco Santori
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

No, Forking Bitcoin Won’t Land You in Legal Hot Water

A few days ago, I awoke to a collection of frantic emails, Slacks, Telegrams and tweets, all asking me the same question: “Can I go to jail for supporting the wrong version of bitcoin?” The fear, uncertainty and doubt wrapped up in this question were palpable. Do software developers contributing code to blockchain projects need to lawyer up? Could those contributions subject them to money services business (MSB) regulations under US law? Are we going to see developers go to jail for failing to get the proper licenses?

These were just some of the questions I received, and the answer to all of them is: of course not. This article does not concern the Bitcoin Classic vs Bitcoin Core debate. It doesn’t advocate for the operational or philosophical merits of any particular approach. It does, however, mean to address the recent concerns over developer contributions to and support of particular versions of free and open-source software. The scaling issue is a technological issue, not a legal one. Are software developers regulated under the money services laws? Of course not. There is no legal authority for the claim that contributions to a decentralized virtual currency software project create liability under the money services laws in any US jurisdiction. You can read here about the kinds of things that might actually bring you under those laws. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), the federal regulator of such matters, has spoken directly on this issue. It said that mere software development can’t be money transmission:

“The production and distribution of software, in and of itself, does not constitute acceptance and transmission of value, even if the purpose of the software is to facilitate the sale of virtual currency.”

FinCEN isn’t alone in proactively clarifying its position on this matter. The New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), which famously published the world’s first digital currency-specific licensing framework, expressly exempts software developers from its regulations. Suggesting that FinCEN or state regulators intend to burden software developers with the yoke of financial services regulation is misleading.

Are ‘creators’ of digital currency software systems regulated?
Of course not.

This idea, though – that the creators of the wrong version of bitcoin are risking jail time – had to come from somewhere. Administrators of certain virtual currency systems might be regulated, but only under some fairly specific circumstances. Administrators of a digital currency system are only regulated MSBs if they can both (i) issue and (ii) redeem that currency. That is to say, if you can put the currency into circulation and also remove it from circulation you could be an MSB. So liability under the money services laws has nothing to do with being a “creator”, it has to do with being an administrator. That’s why operators of centralized systems are often MSBs, but operators of decentralized systems are not. The BitLicense framework incorporates a similar exemption, and steers quite clear of any use of the “creator” concept.

Could miners risk liability for mining a particular chain? Of course not. Civil liability typically requires some duty to another person. Criminal liability typically requires some culpable mental state, like knowingly or recklessly doing an act. Yet, some of the most important characteristics of bitcoin transaction processing are, in no particular order, that network validators (the miners) typically:

– Aren’t parties to the transactiona
– Aren’t required for the transaction to occur (some other miner will mine the block if one doesn’t)
– Don’t have contracts with the parties to the transaction
– Don’t know the details of the transactions they are processing.

Simply mining a block containing a transaction does not create a duty to any of the parties to a transaction, let alone a duty that arose because of the chain that was mined or the software that miner chooses to run on its machines. The parties’ expectations of how their transactions will be mined would probably not be upset by any particular miner mining a different chain (whether shorter or longer), nor would the parties’ expectations give rise to any “duty to mine” on the part of any particular miner. Without knowledge – or reason to know – of the transaction details, criminal liability is difficult to contemplate. So, what is the proper role of the law in the bitcoin scaling debate? Dispute resolution, perhaps. Mediation. De-escalation. Besides those limited cases, though, I’m not sure it has one.

Read More : coindesk.com/forking-bitcoin-msb-legal-issues/

Sanford Bail Bond – Is Sports Betting About To Become Legal Outside Of Nevada?

Source     : Forbes
By            : Darren Heitner , Contributor
Category : Sanford Bail Bond , Bail Bond Sanford

Is Sports Betting About To Become Legal Outside Of Nevada?

The State of New Jersey has fought for years to establish a sports betting scheme that would allow it to bring in more money for its troubled budget and provide a boost to its struggling casino industry. Each effort has been shot down, with the NCAA and the “Big Four” American professional sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA) claiming that allowing New Jersey such an exception would be a blatant violation of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (“PASPA”), which bans states from offering any form of sports betting to individuals within their borders. The one exception among the U.S. states that is allowed a sweeping form of sports betting is Nevada, as it was grandfathered in when PASPA was passed. There may finally be hope for New Jersey and others states that seek to implement a sports wagering system. This Wednesday, February 17, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will rehear New Jersey’s case as to why it believes it should be able to permit casinos and racetracks within the state to offer sports betting at such venues. A majority of judges in the Third Circuit were required to vote for a rehearing in order for it to be granted, which is a promising sign for New Jersey in its ongoing quest to essentially circumvent PASPA.

Why is the Third Circuit’s rehearing so important?

Rehearings are extremely rare; circuit courts of appeal are reluctant to grant such requests. By way of example, in 2006 a total of 1,028 motions for rehearing were filed in the Fourth District Court of Appeals and only twenty-one of them were granted. That makes the granting of New Jersey’s case a special exception to the rule and may be read as a positive sign as to the likelihood of success on the merits of the state’s argument. “It’s huge,” said New Jersey Senator Raymond Lesniak when the rehearing was initially announced. ”Chances are, they wouldn’t have vacated the ruling if they were only going to later on confirm it.” While New Jersey has certainly gained an edge over its prior position by way of receiving approval for a rehearing, it is not case closed for the state. It still must prove that the prior decisions were wrong and that New Jersey should be entitled to enact the sports betting system it selected in the past. “We are glad that the ruling – which robbed New Jersey of the opportunity to benefit from the billion-dollar sports betting industry – will be reconsidered and heard by the full court,” said Congressmen Frank Pallone, Jr. and Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey in October 2015. “Not only do the citizens of New Jersey overwhelmingly support legalized sports betting and the revenue that would come to the state with it, but existing federal law picks winners and losers, and is unconstitutional and arbitrary.  We remain committed to seeing sports betting become legal in New Jersey, and this reconsideration is a positive and important development.”

How will the rehearing work?

New Jersey’s rehearing on its sports betting plan will require that the court sits “en banc.” That is a Latin phrase meaning that all judges of the Third Circuit will participate in the rehearing, which is atypical, as standard Third Circuit decisions are provided by a panel of three judges. There will be a total of twelve judges participating on Wednesday. Some of the judges have been involved in this case the past, either siding with the State of New Jersey or the NCAA and professional sports leagues in their efforts to keep sports betting banned. Importantly, the en banc court’s decision will carry the day. The panel’s decision, which ruled against the State of New Jersey, was vacated when the en banc rehearing was granted. It is as though the prior decision of the court never existed. If the en banc court of twelve judges vote in a 6-6 tie, then the district court’s original ruling will be reinstated. Thus, the State of New Jersey wants a 7-5 result in its favor, or better.

What is at issue?

This is New Jersey’s second major attempt to allow for sports betting within its borders. The first time around, PASPA’s constitutionality was challenged as a violation of states’ rights. New Jersey lost in a 2-1 decision, which indicated that the state is not prohibited from repealing its own ban on sports wagering under PASPA. Thus, New Jersey repealed its own sports betting ban to the extent that it would only allow for casinos and racetracks to accept sports wagers. The state was told again, in a 2-1 decision, that its plan was unlawful. The court did not view New Jersey’s plan as a repeal, but instead deemed it to be a wrongful authorization for select entitles to be involved in sports betting. The real issue is reconciling the two decisions, which may appear to contradict each other. The first loss for New Jersey indicated that the state could repeal a ban on sports betting, but the second loss seems to state that it cannot be done on a preferential basis. What an approved system would look like and how it would comport with PASPA are questions that remain unanswered.

What’s next after the rehearing?

Do not expect a ruling from the en banc court on Wednesday nor in close proximity to the rehearing. These decisions can take upwards of six months before actual rulings are released. If New Jersey fails to win on rehearing, then it could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the U.S. Supreme Court receives roughly 8,000 petitions for cases to be heard per year, and it grants and hears oral argument in approximately eighty of them. Thus, the statistical odds of this case making it to the U.S. Supreme Court are slim. Should New Jersey prevail, then it would be extremely likely that the NCAA and professional sports leagues file an appeal. Additionally, the NCAA and professional sports leagues would be destined to seek an injunction against New Jersey’s casinos and racetracks offering any forms of sports betting while an appeal is ongoing. Either way, the en banc court’s decision on rehearing may not be the end of this lingering battle concerning sports betting. A ruling in favor of New Jersey not only has the potential to change the sports betting landscape within the state, but could have ramifications for other states that seek implementing a similar system. If the court deems that New Jersey’s effort is permissible, then we could see a similar structure adopted by other states, possibly leading to more lawsuit, but also potentially resulting in the death of PASPA.

Read More : forbes.com/sites/darrenheitner/2016/02/15/is-sports-betting-about-to-become-legal-outside-of-nevada/#61c23d6e5c02

Bondsman in Seminole County – Ask a Trooper: Is hitchiking legal?

Source     : Duluth News Tribune
By            : Sgt. Neil Dickenson, Minnesota State Patrol
Category : Bail Bondsman in Sanford, Bondsman in Seminole County

Ask a Trooper: Is hitchiking legal?

Q: Is it legal to hitchhike in Minnesota?

A : Minnesota State Statute 169.22 states “No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting a ride from the driver of any private vehicle.” A roadway is defined as “a portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder.” So as long as the person was off the roadway (shoulder or ditch), they technically could solicit a ride from a person driving a motor vehicle. It is important to mention that no pedestrian is allowed on or along the freeway (including the shoulder and ditch).

There is great concern for pedestrian/hitchhiker safety. Pedestrians are at great risk from vehicles traveling at high rates of speeds, as well as distracted and intoxicated drivers. In addition, picking up a hitchhiker carries a certain amount of risk. You should use good common sense and judgment in these types of situations. It comes down to two key factors — personal safety and traffic safety.

Read More : duluthnewstribune.com/news/3947917-ask-trooper-hitchiking-legal