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 6^th 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~

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 13^th 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 13^th 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~

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 ~

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~

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~

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 8^th 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~

Montana Decision Stayed Pending Review By the US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court’s decision: American Tradition Partnership, Inc., fka, Western Tradition Partnership, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Steve Bullock, Attorney General of Montana, et al.  by upholding the state’s century-old ban on corporate political spending. A Huffington Post blog entry said that the stay granted by the US Supreme Court on February 17, 2012 sets up a possible full-blown rematch over the 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed unlimited corporate campaign spending.

The application for a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari was granted and Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer together issued a joint statement regarding the stay indicating that they welcomed the opportunity to revisit, and potentially reverse, Citizens United. Both Justices agree that if a writ of certiorari were granted, it would give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citzens United should continue to hold sway.

Much of what was stated in the Stay Order written by Ginsburg and Breyer was paraphrased and seconded in a New York Times editorial entitled “The Court and Citzens United II” published on February 21, 2012.

Thus far amicus briefs have been filed by Free Speech for People, et al, Citizens United, Senator Mitch McConnell and the U.S Chamber of Commerce.

Lyle Denniston and Tom Goldstein , reporters for the SCOTUSblog, predict that there is still time for the US Supreme Court to act on this Montana case one way or another, before the current term ends in late June. The Court could either hear this case or simply overturn it. Goldstein in his blog indicated that if the Supreme Court were to grant a writ of certiorari to the Montana case rather than summarily reversing it, then the resolution of this case might have some impact on the presidential election.

~Jane Fraytet~

Morris L. Cohen: Book Lover, Librarian, Scholar and a Well Loved Person

What is the measure of a person’s life – the legacy left behind?

How will you be remembered?

MORRIS L. COHEN: The American Association of Law Libraries dedicated one entire volume of their Law Library Journal to reflecting back on the scholarly work Morris Cohen accomplished during his lifetime. Morris died in late 2010, but his memory burns brightly in volume 104, the Winter issue of AALL Journal printed in 2012.

What is the measure of a person’s life-how do we determine the legacy one leaves behind? How will you be remembered? What kind of lawyer will you be? How will your success be measured, will it be measured in dollars or by the number of people you helped in your lifetime?

Morris L. Cohen was known as a scholar who shunned the practice of law because it was too confrontational. Morris was a law librarian, at both Harvard and Yale law libraries, where he helped usher the schools into the era of computers.

“Morris was a towering figure in legal education,” said S. Blair Kauffman, now the law librarian at Yale, “and helped transform two of the world’s greatest academic libraries.” The computer catalog at Yale is known as Morris.

Among Professor Cohen’s books are “Legal Research in a Nutshell” (1968), “Law: The Art of Justice” (1992) and “A Guide to the Early Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States” (1995).

Born in the Bronx in 1927, Cohen earned his bachelor’s degree at the University of Chicago in 1947 and his law degree from Columbia in 1951.

Morris Cohen wanted to be a labor lawyer, but his leftist activities in college led to many job rejections. Cohen practiced law with his uncle, Max Cohen, and then on his own for several years before starting to study for a master’s degree in library science at the Pratt Institute, which he received in 1959.

In an introduction to a tribute to Morris L. Cohen, librarian Fred R. Shapiro stated that when Morris Cohen died, “the New York Times printed a sizable obituary for Morris; probably no other law librarian, at least in modern times, has ever been accorded that honor. However, that was not the end of it. A few days later the Times printed an editorial hailing him: Professor Cohen saw law, its study and its practice, as a bountiful, all-encompassing, field… In an age when the internet …gives, many the illusion they are scholarly detectives, the meticulous, old-fashion research he put into [his] bibliography is almost unfathomable. It yielded a resource that is matchless, brilliant and of eternal value.

Check out the Volume 104, number 1, Winter 2012 (quarterly edition) of the Law Library Journal, published by the American Association of Law Libraries, to explore the 171 pages dedicated in a loving tribute to a man they knew and loved.

Law Library Journal Vol.104, No. 1 Winter 2012

A Tribute To Morris L. Cohen (1927-2010) 

• Introduction-Shapiro 9-10
• A Remembrance and Celebration-Vincent DiMarco , Kent C. Olson, Balfour Halevy, Lika Miyake, Mary Jane Kelsey, Sharon Hamby O’Connor, Robert C. Berring 11-24
• In Praise of Morris L. Cohen’s Bibliography of Early American Law -Daniel Cohen 25-28
• Morris L. Cohen: A Reminiscence- Morris S. Arnold 29-30
• Memories of Morris-and How I Use His BEAL-Jordan D. Luttrell 31-32
• Morris Cohen and Rare Book School-David Warrington 33-37
• Morris Cohen and the Art of Book Collecting-Michael Widener 39-43
• Cornerstones for Enduring Law Libraries: Morris Cohen’s Influence at Yale-S. Blair Kauffman 45-51
• Birth of a Nutshell: Morris Cohen in the 1960s-Ken C. Olson 53-67
• The End of Scholarly Bibliography: Robert C. Berring 69-82
• Appeals to the Privy Council Before American Independence: An Annotated Digital Catalogue-Sharon Hamby O’Connor and Mary Sarah Bilder 83-97
• Blackstone and Bibliography: In Memoriam Morris Cohen-Wilfrid Prest 99-113
• Booksellers in Court: Approaches to the Legal History of Copyright in England Before 1842-James Raven 115-134
• The Most Congenial Lawyer/Bibliographer-Mary Whisner 135-147
• Reflections: An Interview with Morris L. Cohen-Bonnie Collier 149-164
• Morris L. Cohen: A Bibliography of His Works-Compiled by Ryan Harrington and Camilla Tubbs 165-171

~Jane Fraytet~

Join in and Vote for Your Favorite Legal Movie!

Recently, I found an old ABA article that listed the Greatest 25 Law Movies of All Time and thought it was a great list… But which movies would be on my list if I had one?  Which movies would be on your list?

Here’s the top 25, by the ABA.  Choose your favorite – and let us know if you have a favorite not listed. We are always open to suggestions and love to expand our legal film collection.

And here’s the list of Honorable Mentions, if you’re interested in some additional write-in contenders.

• THE ACCUSED (1988) Jodie Foster is a woman who is gang-raped in a bar and, when the rapists go free, goads a reluctant prosecutor to pursue the patrons who urged them on.

• ADAM’S RIB (1949) George Cukor’s mannered comedy, with Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn as married lawyers who oppose each other in court.

• BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (1956) Dana Andrews is a writer who sets himself up on a murder rap to reveal the shortcomings of circum­stantial evidence.

• THE CAINE MUTINY (1954) Humphrey Bogart is riveting in this adaptation of Herman Wouk’s complex novel about military authority and moral duty.

• CLASS ACTION (1991) A father and daughter clash in and outside the courtroom as they square off in a volatile product liability case.

•  THE CLIENT (1994) Susan Sarandon is an underwhelming lawyer who finds herself representing a young boy who has witnessed a Mafia hit.

• COUNSELLOR AT LAW (1933) John Barrymore is a workaholic lawyer who is in danger of losing his family in this William Wyler film.

• THE COURT-MARTIAL OF BILLY MITCHELL (1955) Otto Preminger directs Gary Cooper in this tale of the real-life maverick general who thinks an airplane can sink a ship—and is court-martialed for proving it.

• THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE (1997) A new attorney introduced into the world’s most powerful law firm discovers that its managing partner is morally challenged.

• THE FIRM (1993) Tom Cruise is recruited by a prestigious law firm that he gradually learns has a very sinister background.

• THE FORTUNE COOKIE (1966) Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon romp in this Billy Wilder comedy about a sleazy lawyer who talks a relative into feigning injury for the sake of a lawsuit.

• GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI (1996) The true story of efforts to bring to justice Byron De La Beckwith for the 30-year-old murder of civil rights activist Medgar Evers.

• INTOLERABLE CRUELTY (2003) The Coen brothers reveal their take on divorce law. George Clooney is at his toothy best.

• JAGGED EDGE (1985) Defense attorney Glenn Close gets close to a client, played by Jeff Bridges, who is on trial for the murder of his heiress wife.

• JFK (1991) Oliver Stone takes on New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s efforts to solve the Kennedy assassination. History yields to riveting storytelling.

• LEGALLY BLONDE (2001) Reese Witherspoon became one of the most sought-after actresses in Hollywood after ridiculing the elitism of Harvard Law.

• LIAR, LIAR (1997) A hilarious vehicle for Jim Carrey, who plays a lawyer who finds he is physically incapable of telling a fib.

• MICHAEL CLAYTON (2007) George Clooney shines in this look at the dark underbelly of big-firm law.

• MUSIC BOX (1989) Hungarian immigrant Mike Laszlo, accused of being a war criminal, asks his daughter (Jessica Lange) to defend him in court. She learns more about him than she wants to know.

• NORTH COUNTRY (2005) It’s one wom­an against the system: The extra­ordinary Charlize Theron plays a miner who sues the company.

• THE PELICAN BRIEF (1993) A law stu­dent discovers a plot to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices in this John Grisham adaptation.

• THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT (1996) Cameos abound in this portrayal of the trial of the renowned porn publisher.

• PRIMAL FEAR (1996) Richard Gere is the attorney and Edward Norton a young altar boy accused of killing a priest in a story whose plot twists and turns.

• THE RAINMAKER (1997) Another John Grisham lawyer fights the system, this time with Matt Damon starring and Francis Ford Coppola directing.

• A TIME TO KILL (1996) An earnest retelling of the Grisham novel about a racially charged killing in the Deep South. Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock spark

I also discovered that a book was about to be published entitled Lawyering Skills From Classic Films, by Professor Kelly Lynn Anders. The author is the director of communications and diversity at Creighton University of Law. The movies reviewed in Professor Anders’ book were all produced before the 1960s, which is when the modern rating system was established. Anders only wanted to use wholesome movies, those that did not include graphic violence, offensive language, or nudity. The movies included were chosen because they offered useful insights into skills needed to be a successful lawyer.

Here is a link to the National Law Journal article which reviewed  the book entitled Lawyering Skills From Classic Films: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202537122970&slreturn=1

Some of the movies listed in Anders’ book illustrate these lawyering skills:

1. To Kill a Mockingbird-Compassion
2. 12 Angry Men-Negotiation Skills
3. Witness for the Prosecution- Negotiation Skills
4. Judgement at Nuremberg
5. Inherit the Wind
6. Pinky
7. The Paradine Case
8. Salesman-Marketing
9. The Talk of The Town-Flexibility
10. Legally Blonde
11. My Cousin Vinny

So what do you think?

~Jane Fraytet~

U.S. Supreme Court Has Agreed To Review Obamacare Health Law

The Supreme Court will review four issues of the new law:

1. Whether the individual mandate is constitutional?
2. Whether other provisions can be preserved if the mandate is voided?
3. Whether any ruling is premature until 2015?
4. Whether Congress can require states to expand Medicaid programs in 2014?

The Court will hold 2 hours of argument on the constitutionality of the mandate to insist that all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014. Ninety minutes will be allocated for the question of whether some or all of the overall law must fail if the mandate is struck down. One hour will be allowed on the question of whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars some or all of the challenges to the insurance mandate and 1 hour will be set aside to argue the constitutionality of the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled.

The issues the Court has agreed to review were chosen from appeals by the federal government, arguments raised by 26 states and a business trade group. The Supreme Court chose not to review questions involving new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers or issues raised by the Thomas More Law Center or Liberty University.

Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. said the Health Care reform case was the most significant case since Roe v. Wade; he said the litigation over the mandate might be even more important than Roe.

The court’s decision to allow 5 ½ hours of argument time is unprecedented and extraordinary, said Adam Winkler of the UCLA Law School. The allotment of five and one-half hours for oral argument appears to be a modern record, according to Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUSblog. Denniston states that the most recent lengthy hearing came in a major constitutional dispute over campaign finance law in 2003, but that was only for 4 hours. The length of time specified for the health care review was an indication both of the complexity of the issues involved, and the importance they hold for the constitutional division of power between national and state governments.

Adam Liptak of the New York Times reported on November 18, 2011 that the Supreme Court had named 2 lawyers to act as friends of the court and submit briefs and argue points in the health care law case before the U.S. Supreme Court this March.

Bartow H. Farr III was chosen to argue that the individual mandate-the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires almost everyone to buy health insurance or face a tax penalty could be separated from the Act and those parts of the Act would still be enforceable without the mandate. Farr will have 90 minutes to present his arguments for severability.

Robert A. Long was chosen to argue that a federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act makes challenges to the mandate premature until 2015. The U.S. Court for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Virginia, accepted that argument in September, as did a dissenting Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Long will have an hour to argue that challenges to the mandate would be premature until 2015.

The Court has scheduled arguments on the Health Care Law to be heard in March of 2012, and a ruling is expected by June 2012.

~Jane Fraytet~