The New Jersey Supreme Court is the state’s highest appellate court. It is composed of a chief justice and six associate justices. As the highest appellate court, the Supreme Court reviews cases from the lower courts. Most litigants must request that the Court hear their appeal by filing a petition for certification with the Court. The Court may agree to hear an appeal because it presents legal issues of great importance to the public or because the issue is the subject of conflicting Appellate Division decisions. In very limited circumstances, such as where a judge in the Appellate Division files a dissenting opinion, a party may appeal as of right to the Supreme Court. In deciding the cases that come before it, the Court interprets the New Jersey and the United States Constitution, New Jersey statutes, administrative regulations of the state’s governmental agencies, as well as the body of common law. The Chief Justice also serves as the administrative head for the court system, overseeing the management of the state’s courts.
The Supreme Court on Thursday referred to a constitution bench, comprising five senior-most judges, a plea claiming that alleged bribes were being taken using the names of apex court judges promising to secure favourable settlement of a case. The case refers to allegations of bribe paid to judges including from the Supreme Court. The CBI has already filed an FIR in the matter and arrested several people including a former Odisha High Court judge Ishrat Masroor Quddusi. The accused reportedly promised to settle the matter using their contacts at high level including Supreme Court judges, who were hearing the matter of bribery allegations. The bench hearing the bribery allegations was being headed by the CJI Deepak Misra. The bench headed by Justice Chelameswar had referred the matter to bench consisting of five senior most judges considering the severity of the allegations. However, when the hearing commenced on Friday, to his suprise, Bhushan saw a bench of 5 hand picked junior judges, presided by the Chief Justice. “At the end without hearing counsel for the petitioner, order dated 9th November 2013 has been rendered void thought the said matter was not before the court.
The next biggest obstacle we have is taxes. Weve already established the fact that we are paying somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50% in taxes between State, Federal and FICA. Guess how much the big boys are paying in taxes? About 4% – 5%! The work that we do and the things were about to teach you comes from two U.S Supreme Court decisions. This isnt stuff that weve made up; they are backed by the U.S. The first decision says that it is your constitutional right to set yourself up so that your taxes are minimized and you are paying the least amount of taxes possible. How many people got a call from your CPA or accountant saying Did you know that you can legally minimize your taxes? I never got that call. And it was because of that, that I got so infuriated and motivated that I decided to do something about that.
I decided that I had to teach myself how to save a bucket of money because I know that there are people out there that are paying a lot less tax than I am. The point is that these strategies have been around for decades but our accountants and CPAs arent teaching them to us. The other US Supreme Court decision says that there are two tax systems – one for the educated and one for the uneducated and you get to pick which one you are in. This is the system for the uneducated. Which system do you want to be in? Youre saying, Wow I get to spend all the money that I want first and then pay taxes on whats left. That sounds pretty good. What do we call that spending? Business expenses, business write-offs, and business deductions. The problem is that you arent taking but about 10% of the deductions available to you. The most sophisticated and savvy investors and businessmen that come into our program are not taking but 10% of the deductions available to them. And where do you think the other 90% goes? Right down the toilet.
The case is Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., available here; the opinion, which is precedential, is authored by Judge Taranto, joined by Judges Lourie and Chen. The patents in suit relate to voice over Internet protocol (VOIP) services. Genband sued Metaswitch and prevailed on infringement and validity. Judge Gilstrap nevertheless denied entry of a permanent injunction, and the Federal Circuit now remands for reconsideration. From the opinion (pp. The district court rested its denial entirely on the determination that Genband failed to show that it would suffer irreparable harm from Metaswitch’s continued infringement. The court gave two reasons, without indicating that the second reason independently supported its determination. First, the court held that Genband did not demonstrate a causal nexus between the alleged irreparable harm (based on lost sales) and the presence of the infringing features in Metaswitch’s infringing products. Id. at 894-95. In so ruling, the district court stated that “it is Genband’s burden to demonstrate that the patented features drive demand for the product.” .
Genband’s presentation of evidence does not satisfy its burden to show causal nexus. Accordingly, Genband fails to show that it has suffered irreparable harm as required for a permanent injunction. The district court’s second reason for finding no irreparable harm involved Genband’s litigation choices. The court found that, although Genband did not unreasonably delay in suing Metaswitch for infringement, it did delay in suing for several years after analyzing Metaswitch’s products, and the court also observed that Genband did not seek a preliminary injunction. Those facts, the court concluded, weighed against a finding of irreparable harm from Metaswitch’s sales. Id. at 895. The district court denied the requested permanent injunction without addressing other considerations. In this case, the sole basis for denial of the requested injunction was the district court’s finding that Genband did not show irreparable injury from the conduct it sought to enjoin, one precondition to issuing the requested injunction. Genband relied on evidence that Metaswitch was making sales in direct competition with it, causing Genband to lose sales and thereby to suffer harms of the type often found irreparable.
The district court’s opinion, however, leaves us uncertain whether the court relied on too stringent an interpretation of the causal-nexus requirement. The court declared that Genband had to prove that “the patented features drive demand for the product.” . But we cannot be sure that the district court, in demanding such proof, used the standard for causal nexus now established to be the governing standard. Here, Genband argued for a standard on the less stringent side of the spectrum. The district court described Genband’s argument, but the court did not itself say anything to indicate its adoption of the argument. Where the patentee relies on lost sales to show irreparable injury, it matters what reasons various buyers have for making the purchases lost to the patentee. If all but an insignificant number of purchases from the infringer would have been made even without the infringing feature, the causal connection to the asserted lost-sale-based injury is missing. ’ decisions. . . Of course, the causation requirement does not end the injunction inquiry, even as to the irreparable-injury requirement, let alone as to the other elements of the eBay analysis.
But here the only dispositive basis of the district court’s denial of the injunction was the causal nexus requirement. And we cannot be confident that the district court applied the current governing approach to causation rather than an unduly demanding approach. We conclude that a remand is needed. Apart from its causal-nexus determination, the district court deemed the timing of Genband’s suit and Genband’s choice not to seek a preliminary injunction to weigh against a finding of irreparable injury. Genband correctly points out that, when a patent owner postpones suit and forgoes a preliminary injunction, there may well be reasons for the patent owner’s actions independent of any implied concession that the infringement-caused injury is not actually irreparable . But Genband has not justified a per se rule making the patent owner’s choices about when to sue and whether to seek interim relief legally irrelevant. As the court’s cites to the Apple-Samsung litigation suggests, causal nexus was a bone of contention in those cases too, and indeed is one of the issues regarding which Samsung has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. I’m inclined to agree that the test for causal nexus shouldn’t be overly strict, because injunctions may be desirable even if the plaintiff cannot prove specific lost sales resulting from the infringement.
US v Beltran Moreno a decision issued two days ago by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In this case, two defendants pleaded guilty to a multiple-count indictment. Because the district court judge was not familiar with the law regarding sentencing, he calculated a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years, which was twenty years lower than that required by statute. What’s more, the district judge then exercised his discretion to depart downward from the US Sentencing Guidelines recommendation, sentencing the defendants to thirty-five years in prison instead of imprisoning them for the rest of their lives as the Guidelines suggest. The defendants’ trial counsel had the good sense not to object to the district court’s sentence, which — given that it was lower than legally mandated — was certainly better than they could have possibly imagined. Why in the world would anyone seek to appeal if there was only one direction in which the defendants’ sentences could go, and that was up — by at least five years? The conduct of appellate counsel is just another example of how not to practice law and they were very lucky the court did not impose sanctions. They filed an appeal that, given the law at the time, could only have resulted in a higher sentence for their clients and did so based on a frivolous argument. Only because of the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court were the clients spared the consequences of their attorneys poor judgment. We remind counsel that the professional norms that establish the constitutional baseline for their effective performance indisputably include the duty to research the relevant case law and to advise a client properly on the consequences of an appeal.
The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) had issued a writ of habeas corpus with a view to securing Mr Rahmatullah’s release. He remains held by the USA at Bagram, Afghanistan. Later, the Court of Appeal accepted that the Foreign Secretary had made an adequate “return” to the writ. The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal of the Secretary of State and by a majority of 5-2 (Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath dissenting) dismissed the cross appeal of Mr Rahmatullah. See the judgment and the press summary. Writing in The Guardian, Joshua Rozenberg sees the minority judgment as persuasive – Yunus Rahmatullah’s unlawful detention? UK should have tried harder. In Jessy Saint-Prix v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Supreme Court has made a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Supreme Court is obliged to refer questions of EU law to the Court of Justice for the European Union (‘the CJEU’) if the application of the Directive in the circumstances of this case is not clear. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has referred certain questions to the CJEU. The key purpose of the reference procedure is to ensure uniformity of the law across the EU.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided in favor of the Second Amendment again today. In a majority decision written by Judge Diane Sykes, the court found that the new zoning restrictions imposed by the City of Chicago on shooting ranges were unconstitutional. It also found that the city’s restriction that limited range use to those 18 years of age or older was unconstitutional. Judge Ilana Rovner concurred on one of the zoning restrictions and dissented on another one of these restrictions and on the age restriction. I am in the midst of reading the decision now. In the meantime, here is the response of the Second Amendment Foundation which brought the original and subsequent lawsuit on behalf of Rhonda Ezell and the other plaintiffs. BELLEVUE, WA — A three-judge panel of the Seventh U.S. Writing for the court, Judge Diane S. Sykes noted, “To justify these barriers, the City raised only speculative claims of harm to public health and safety.
“We are delighted with the outcome of this lengthy case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The extremes to which the city has gone in an attempt to narrow its compliance with the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago can only be described as incredible stubbornness. In the 6½ years since the high court ruling in our McDonald case, the city has had ample opportunity to modify its regulations. Instead, Chicago has resisted reasonableness. “We had already sued Chicago successfully to knock down its outright ban on gun ranges within the city,” he recalled. “The city tried to severely limit where shooting ranges could be located, and they failed,” he continued. “The city put up arguments about the potential for gun theft, fire hazards and airborne lead contamination, and they failed. Even the judge’s opinion today noted that the city had ‘produced no evidentiary support for these claims beyond the speculative testimony of three city officials.’ This nonsense has got to stop. Also on the panel with Judge Sykes were Judges Michael S. Kanne and Ilana D. Rovner. As a side note, Judge Sykes is one of the jurists mentioned as a possible successor to Justice Antonin Scalia by President-elect Donald Trump. Given this decision and the earlier Ezell I decision, it is my hope that she be given the strongest consideration for this nomination.
WAS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS BLACKMAILED INTO SUPPORTING OBAMACARE BY HIS LEADER V. FACEBOOK MISCONDUCT? Eric Holder instruct Judge Leonard Stark to violate Leader’s rights? 4. Judge Evan J. Wallach held Facebook stock too; this means ALL THREE JUDGES HELD FACEBOOK STOCK. 5. Wallach’s wife, Dr. Katherine Tobin, is tight with the Obama administration and Harry Reid. — Investigators have uncovered deep ties between the Obama administration and Facebook’s attorneys Cooley Godward Kronish LLP (“Cooley”). Consider the cover-up of four deaths at the Benghazi embassy the State Department; the targeting of the Tea Party by the IRS; the secret wiretapping of The Associated Press approved by Justice Department magistrate judge. And now, consider the corruption of the SEC and Justice Department to protect 47 million “likes” on Facebook. These scandals expose an arrogant administration that stops at nothing to get its way. ] This flippancy telegraphs a governmental cancer. In such a cancerous ethical environment, bribing judges to hide Facebook’s theft of the technology that runs Facebook is just another day at the office.
They expect Leader Technologies and its investors, whom they’ve cheated, to get over it, like a bad cold. What will be needed to get to the bottom of this corruption? In Leader v. Facebook, Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 counts of stealing Leader’s technology, and yet Facebook has sidestepped accountability, so far, with Cooley-fabricated evidence. Now we know why. Another federal magistrate judge, Leonard P. Stark, presided over the Leader v. Facebook trial between July 19 and July 28, 2010. He had only been assigned to the case one month before trial. He replaced veteran judge Joseph Farnan, a Reagan appointee. In the month before trial, Stark was busy helping Facebook. Stark allowed Facebook to add a new on-sale bar claim. It came after the close of all discovery, and on the same day that he took over the trial. On-sale bar is polar opposite to their earlier false marking—which arrogantly claimed that Leader had no invention, but was telling the world they did.
In the switcheroo, Facebook was conceding that they were infringing Leader’s patent, but this last minute flip-flop now alleged that Leader tried to sell the invention too soon. This is political whitewash by an Obama administration Justice Department that is above the law, uses corrupt law firms like Cooley Godward LLP and employs bag men like Michael Rhodes to do their bidding. 465 million Obama stimulus DURING the Leader v. Facebook case. Judge Leonard P. Stark was rewarded with a judgeship eight (8) days after the trial. All three Federal Circuit judges, Kimberly A. Moore, Alan D. Lourie and Evan J. Wallach were rewarded with a Facebook IPO value boost to their stock portfolios (We have no idea how many in their immediate families invested also. Federal Circuit decisions were timed perfectly to Facebook’s pre-IPO media needs. Federal Circuit clerk staffer for Clerk Jan Horbaly, Valerie White, said the judges did not have time to see motions (that was before her phone number was changed the next day and she stopped returning calls). On-sale bar is like the tax code.
Nobody understands it. Even the name “on-sale bar” sounds like a judicial honky-tonk, so it’s a playground for unscrupulous lawyers. When Judge Leonard Stark failed to use the Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc. U.S. Sadly, the borders of this Cooley Godward playground include the Federal Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court and other “high-powered” lawyers like Gibson Dunn LLP, Facebook’s appellate lawyers. Stark blocked Leader from building defenses to the new claim. Leader could have easily presented its source code to prove the allegation was false, but Stark blocked it. Facebook did not put up a single piece of hard evidence. Instead, Stark allowed two pieces of Cooley-doctored evidence at trial. Fragments of evidence are normally not allowed to be presented in court. This so-called evidence became the centerpiece of the judicial misconduct from that point forward. Facebook offered no expert witnesses, no source code evidence, no testimony from the third parties who supposedly received these offers, no legal proofs at all.
They only had Cooley Godward’s snippets of video taken out of context, and a 60% blanked out questionnaire. Legally speaking, the Facebook decision was a whitewash by Stark; a total outlier. ] just eight days after the Leader v. Facebook trial ended. The timing is just all too unseemly. NSK LTD. v. US, 346 F. Supp. SKF USA INC. v. US, 316 F. Supp. PS CHEZ SIDNEY v. US INTERN. TRADE COM’N., 502 F. Supp. 1. When Stewart, as President of the FCBA—Wallach’s new bar association, filed the 2012 motion adverse to Leader, Judge Wallach should have disqualified himself, but did not. Instead, he was silent about his conflicting relationship to Stewart. 2. When Stewart and the FCBA hired Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP—Judge Moore’s former client, Judge Moore should have disqualified herself, but did not. She was silent about her conflicting relationship to Weil Gotshal. 3. Judge Moore, while presiding over Leader v. Facebook, failed to disclose that Thomas Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP—Facebook’s counsel, represented the FCBA—her bar association, on the subject of judge recusal, in conjunction Weil Gotshal LLP, her former client. 5. Neither Judges Randall R. Rader, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach, Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly nor the entire en banc Federal Circuit court disclosed their attorney-client relationship with Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. This set of conflicts is inexcusable and shows the court to be ethically profligate.
Fusion TV, owned by Univision, was in Cleveland recently, investigating a storyline that the city, playing host to the upcoming Republican National Convention, was seeking to attract thousands of immigrants to help reverse depopulation, revive struggling neighborhoods, and boost entrepreneurship. The TV producer heard about the Cleveland Mayor’s “Dream Neighborhood” program to rehab or build homes for new refugees. She thought that this was a nice angle to juxtapose against the flaming nativist rhetoric and xenophobia of the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump. The only problem with this narrative about Cleveland really embracing immigrants, all immigrants (not just refugees), and joining the immigrant-friendly city movement found in nearby rust belt cities, is that it’s false. Yes, Cleveland is one of the poorest and fastest depopulating cities in the country, despite a recent downtown influx of millennials, in dire need of new blood, new energy, and an army of entrepreneurs, homeowners and consumers. Economic growth in many North American cities (look at Toronto with over 50% of its population born abroad) is being turbocharged by the fresh ideas, hard work, and risk-taking of immigrant newcomers. Yes, Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson, a Democrat, has been talking a bit about immigrants lately.