Tag Archives: Jane Fraytet

The City of New York Will Settle Both Cases That Were Brought Against Them


Mayor de Blasio has agreed to withdraw the city’s Appeal from the Federal District Court  decision rendered by Judge Scheindlin. The city asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to return the case on appeal back to the Federal District Court in New York.

Once the N.Y. Federal Appeals Court returns the case back to the N.Y. Federal District Court, Judge Torres will implement the agreement reached by the sets of Plaintiffs who filed the original two suits against the City of New York.

In the lower court decision decided by Judge Scheindlin, she “ordered the appointment of a monitor to develop, in consultation with the parties, widespread reforms of the department’s policies, training, supervision, monitoring and discipline regarding stop-and-frisk” and that process will go forward as part of the agreement.

New York Times Resources:

Previous Blog Postings on Charlotte Law Library News:

~Jane Fraytet~

Leave a comment

Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students

Oakland Football Cheerleader Filed a Class-Action Suit Against the Oakland Raiders

cheerleaders Lacy T. filed a lawsuit as a class action suit on behalf of all present and former Oakland Raider cheerleaders who have worked for the football team since 2010. Ms. T claims that the owners of the Oakland Raiders violated both California and Federal wage laws, as the Raider cheerleaders were paid $1,250 per season, which amounted to $125 per home game and an average of $5.00 per hour worked.  The federal minimum wage is $8.00.

Oakland Raider cheerleaders are required to work approximately 9 hours per day on game days and attend 2 or 3 three-hour rehearsals per week and make approximately 10 unpaid appearances per year at charitable events.

The Oakland cheerleaders also have many out-of-pocket expenses each year that they are not reimbursed for, which can amount to as much as $650.00. The cheerleaders have to pay their own travel expenses to appearances, pay for Raider-approved hair stylists, yoga mats and false eyelashes.

In order for this lawsuit to move forward, a hearing must be held in the Superior Court in Alameda County in California on whether the lawsuit can be certified as a class action.  The hearing should take place within the next 3-5 months.

~Jane Fraytet~


Leave a comment

Filed under Librarians Can Be Fun Too, News, Of Interest to Law Students

New York Stop-and-Frisk Case: Part Deux


A panel of Judges for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York who  had recently removed Judge Shira Scheindlin from the City’s stop-and-frisk case, have now issued a lengthy explanation of how they had made “no findings of misconduct, actual bias or actual partiality” by  judge Scheindlin.

The New York Times newspaper has written two articles in two days summarizing the actions taken by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The first article explained how the Federal Court had softened its tone from the Order which removed Judge Scheindlin from the stop-and-frisk case.

The second article which was written by N.Y. Times Editorial Board said that the Court’s new Opinion appears less highhanded than the first but still claims that the panel had no choice but to disqualify Judge Scheindlin for comments she made in court and in press interviews.

Judge Scheindlin recently filed a Motion saying that she had…“felt ambushed, and petitioned the court for the opportunity to defend herself”.

This week’s ruling denied that motion and also backed away from some of the serious charges that were implied in the earlier ruling. And by finding no actual misconduct by the judge, the appeals court seemed to signal to the city that there are no grounds to vacate Judge Scheindlin’s decisions”.

The Times concluded that the fate of the stop-and-frisk program will be left up to the City’s incoming mayor, Bill de Blasio, who has pledged to reform the program. The newspaper stated that it “believes the full court should review and reverse the three-judge panel’s ruling”.

~Jane Fraytet~


Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students

Federal District Judge Rules That Stop and Frisk Methods Used by New York Police Violated Citizen’s Constitution Rights


In David Floyd, et al., v. City of New York 08-CV-1034 (SAS) U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the standards used by the City police have violated the rights of thousands of New Yorkers. The plaintiffs in this combined case are David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, and David Ourlicht, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated, plaintiffs (a total of 12 class members were certified) to sue the City of New York.

Judge Scheindlin in her opening remarks of the Floyd case summarized the case as being a situation concerning the tension between liberty and public safety in the use of a proactive tool called “stop and frisk.” Current procedures that have been used by the city police were found to be a form of racial profiling and thus violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.


The Floyd case was a suit brought by residents of New York against the New York Police Department (NYPD) for having violated their civil rights. The parties in the Floyd case challenged certain aspects of NYPD’s “stop and frisk” practices in connection with stops made on suspicion of trespass outside of certain privately-owned buildings in the Bronx. Residents moved for preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring NYPD to create and implement new policies, training programs, and monitoring and supervisory procedures specifically addressing the issue of unconstitutional trespass stops outside buildings.

In Judge Scheindlin’s decision, which was decided on August 12, 2013, she found that the City of New York was liable for violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because of the way that the NYPD had conducted stops and frisks over the past decade. In a similar case, the Lion v. City of New York that Judge Scheindlin decided in January 2013, Scheindlin found that the plaintiffs there could be certified as a class of people representing those who had been stopped outside buildings participating in Trespass Affidavit Program (“TAP”) in the Bronx.  Accordingly, they were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief based on violations of their 14th Amendment rights.

Scheindlin, in her August 16, 2013 opinion, combined the Floyd case and the Ligon case together because the remedies recommended in both cases were the same and both should be reviewed together.

Because of the Constitutional violations found in both the Floyd and Ligon cases, Judge Scheindlin is requiring that the NYPD reform the city’s practices and policies related to their stop and frisk program to conform to the requirements of the United States Constitution.

Judge Scheindlin stated in her opinion that she would be appointing Peter L. Zimroth to be an independent Monitor and to oversee the reform process of the police department and to make sure that the police were in compliance with the constitution. Judge Scheindlin outlined the four steps that would need to be followed by Zimroth, the federal Monitor, and the NYPD in order to achieve the prescribed reforms that Scheindlin believes the NYPD needs to make:

The Outline for Reform:

First, the NYPD should revise its policies and training regarding stop and frisk to adhere to constitutional standards as well as New York state law.

Second, the NYPD should revise its policies and training regarding racial profiling to make clear that targeting “the right people” for stops is a form of racial profiling and violates the Constitution.

Third, if necessary, change the use of “performance goals” which the police department may have been using to increase the number of “stop and frisks” required by the City Police every year.

Fourth, where legitimate uncertainty exists regarding the most efficient means of reform, and where parties may have differing views, it may be feasible for the Monitor to test the alternatives by applying them in different precincts and studying the results.

In closing, it should be noted that on August 16, 2013 – four days after Judge Scheindlin’s opinion was issued in the Floyd v. City of New York  case – the City of New York filed its Notice of Appeal in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York saying that they were filing their appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from ECF Document 372 the remedial opinion and order, dated August 12, 2013 and ECF Document 373 opinion and order, dated August 12, 2013.

By the time the Appeal for the Floyd case has been decided there will most likely be a new Mayor in New York and it will be the their responsibility to follow Judge Scheindlin’s recommendations on the city “stop and frisk” practices or deal with the recommendations of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

~Jane Fraytet~


Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students

The Drones Are Coming-Part II


This post is a follow up to an earlier posting on domestic drones and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012: Big Brother is Watching

Our state assembly is considering a bipartisan bill that would limit drone use in North Carolina. On March 6th of this year, our NC state chapter of the ACLU joined 22 other state chapters of the ACLU and filed a documents request asking for public records from local law enforcement agencies asking for information about their existing drone programs and future drone programs if they have existing plans for any.

Sixty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies in North Carolina have been asked about their use of drones and other military-style weapons, what funding do they have and what training, if any, and what training, if any, is provided for their use.

Proposed NC House Bill 312, if it became law would introduce sensible safeguards on the use of drones. HB312 would be known as the “Preserving Privacy Act of 2013,” it would prohibit individuals and government agencies, including law enforcement, from using a drone to gather evidence or other data on individuals without first obtaining a warrant that shows probable cause of criminal activity.

HB 312 includes an exception that allows law enforcement to use a drone to conduct searches if the agency possesses “reasonable suspicion” that immediate action is necessary to prevent certain types of imminent harm.

~Jane Fraytet~

Leave a comment

Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students

Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln — The Epic Struggle to Get the 13th Amendment Passed by Congress


Abraham Lincoln understood that neither the Emancipation Proclamation nor the end of the Civil War would be enough to abolish slavery; hence, the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution would have to be enacted in order to outlaw the ownership of slaves.

Amendment XIII

Section 1.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Lincoln believed that ending the Civil War would not guarantee an end of slavery and believed a permanent legal solution would be necessary. Lincoln proposed adding the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but knew there would be political resistance to getting this law approved by Congress. The majority of the movie dealt with Lincoln’s struggle to get the 13th Amendment enacted and passed by the U.S. Congress. Much of the deal making to get enough votes to pass this amendment to the Constitution was well documented in Doris Kern’s book, A Team of Rivals and was incorporated into the script of the movie. What humor there was in this film was based on all the deal making tactics that Lincoln’s surrogates used to get various politicians to vote for the passage of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Spielberg’s Lincoln tried to show Lincoln as a real man, a realist and as a real politician. In a New York Times’ movie review written by A.O. Scott, the author says that “the legislative process-the linchpin of our system of checks and balances-is often treated with lofty contempt masquerading as populist indignation, an attitude typified by the aw-shucks antipolitics of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. (N.Y.Times, A.O. Scott, November 8, 2012)

Roger Ebert, the movie critic, gave this movie a 4 star rating and I too would give the movie a high rating because of the excellent script written by Kushner, as well as the terrific cinematography done by Janusz Kaminski and good acting performances given by Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones and Daniel Day-Lewis. The movie is rated PG-13 and lasts for 149 minutes, which could be a little long for some children.  Buy some popcorn and enjoy this legal thriller.

~Jane Fraytet~

Leave a comment

Filed under Librarians Can Be Fun Too, Of Interest to Law Students

Commercial Law Study Aids

Exams are coming, are you ready?

Here are some study tools to help you ace those Commercial Law Exams:

Check List Approach

Leibson’s book includes numerous outlines, bullet points, sample essay questions, and answers.

Outline Approach

Use this law summary to create your own outline to study for exams.

Nutshell Approach

Stone & Adams’ Uniform Commercial Code in a Nutshell

This book provides a concise but comprehensive introduction to the Uniform Commercial Code.  It covers all the major topics of the code, including the process of selling, payment, negotiation, shipping, storage, financing sales, and leasing of goods.

Black Letter Law  &  Nutshell Approach

Nickles & Matthew’s Black Letter Law and Nutshell on Payments:

Both explain the fundamentals of negotiable instruments-promissory notes, drafts, checks, and certificates of deposit. These books provide an overview of Article 3′s requisites of negotiability and review contract liability, secondary liability conditions, and discharge liability including transfer, and negotiation. These books also discuss warranty, restitution, claims and defenses to instruments, holder in due course, and check collection process.

To find these study aids on Westlaw go to: https://lawschool.westlaw.com/

Sign-on at “West Study Aids Subscription” tab once you get into this area of Westlaw.  You can search the entire collection by Keyword or by subject area. Use these study aids as well as Examples & Explanations, Emanuel CrunchTime, Law in a Flash, Understanding Series, Casenote Legal Briefs Q & A Series, Concepts & Insight Series, Mastering Series, and Legalines published by other companies. Carpe diem.

~ Jane Fraytet ~

Leave a comment

Filed under Books & Stuff, West Study Aids

DNC Charlotte 2012: A Recap in Pictures

Met Miss Chiquita Banana on the way to the Convention Arena

Welcome Convention Volunteers sign at the Convention Center

Dog choosing which Obama shirt to buy

Police Dog on Duty at Convention Center

Deni Coryell (CSL Student) working as a volunteer at the DNC

Jane Meets the Media and Delegates!

Judy Woodruff from PBS TV – seen at the Media Area in the basement of the Convention Center

Jane Sees More Media

ABC Media Crew Member with Major Supply of Caffeine

Time Magazine Doing Photo Shoot with Delegates at the Convention Center

Work Area for C-Span at Convention Center

Media Work Area for CBS NEWS at Convention Center

NC Delegate from Durham with Blogger – Convention Center

Delegates with Obama Puppet Gloves – Convention Center

Delegate with Native Costume & Flag – Convention Center

~Jane Fraytet~

Leave a comment

Filed under CharlotteLaw Library Team Members, Events, Local Points of Interest and Events

Did You Get Your Refund Check from Reebok This Week?

Refund checks stemming from Reebok’s Settlement were sent out recently and because I was a member of this class action and because I filed a claim against Reebok in a timely manner, I got a check for $176.00 from Reebok.

Last October I wrote a blog entry telling people about the FTC action against Reebok and advised anyone who purchased a pair of Reebok’s EasyTone shoes to file their claim against Reebok before the filing deadline.

Class action suits filed by federal agencies like the FTC can curb companies from using false advertisements to sell their products. Reebok had to pay $25 million in refunds to approximately 315,000 buyers of EasyTone products because of their false advertising practices.

The FTC action against Reebok was taken because of Reebok’s false advertising practices.  Reebok claimed that their shoes had the ability to tone and strengthen your leg muscles as you walked or ran in them. As a person who bought 2 pairs of Reebok’s EasyTone shoes I can tell you from my own personal experience that my leg muscles were neither stronger nor more toned because I wore my EasyTone exercise shoes.

Buyer beware-caveat emptor.

~Jane Fraytet~


Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students

Mystery and Intrigue at the U.S. Supreme Court

Did Justice Thomas leak insider Court information to Jan Crawford of CBS-TV regarding how Chief Justice Roberts was running the Supreme Court? Crawford said that Judge Thomas believed that “unlike Roberts he (Thomas) didn’t pay attention to media coverage on the court, and didn’t go wobbly like Roberts and he himself didn’t pay attention to media coverage.”

This story was shared on July 1 on CBS Face the Nation and just this past Sunday July 8th Crawford did a follow-up story on the mood of the Supreme Court just before the health care plan decision was released to the public.

Crawford went on to say that discord at the Supreme Court is deep and personal after Chief Justice John Roberts’ surprise decision to side with the liberal justices in upholding a large portion of the president’s health care plan.

According to Jan Crawford, the conservatives feel a sense of betrayal, because the conservative justices believe that Roberts changed his mind for the wrong reasons.

Sources say that if Roberts had been with the liberals from the beginning that would have been one thing, but switching his position – and relatively late in the process – infuriated the conservatives.

Roberts initially sided with the four conservatives to strike down the heart of the health care law — the mandate that would require all Americans buy insurance or pay a penalty.

When Roberts changed his mind and joined with the liberals, he tried to get Justice Kennedy to come along, but of course as we all now know, Kennedy would not join Roberts.

The conservative members of the Court wrote their own opinion and wanted theirs to look like a majority decision in the hope that Roberts would join them and strike down the mandate.

There have been many big fights in the Supreme Court before and we will not know the effect of this dust up for a while, but we can only wonder how this will impact the 2012-2013 term. Will the U.S. Supreme Court remain divided along conservative and liberal lines?  Only time will tell.

~Jane Fraytet~

Leave a comment

Filed under News, Of Interest to Law Students