APPEAL AND ERROR — INTOXICATING LIQUORS — Appeal by intervening claimant from judgment forfeiting automobile allegedly used in unlawful transportation of liquor — Court may allow supersedeas or stay and may order automobile returned to appellant upon execution of suitable bond.
On appeal by an intervening claimant from a judgment rendered in a proceeding had pursuant to 37 O. S. 1941 §§ 111-113, ordering forfeiture of an automobile allegedly taken in the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquor, this court in the exercise of its inherent powers and superintending control may allow a supersedeas or stay on such terms as it may prescribe for the protection of the parties pending the appeal, and, in its discretion, may order the automobile returned to the appellant upon the execution of a suitable written undertaking to the effect that the obligor will pay to defendant in error an amount of money equal to the value of the automobile at the time of its seizure in event the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Original application by Opal Weaver for supersedeas pending appeal of judgment forfeiting an automobile. Supersedeas granted.
Tyree Busby, of Lawton, for plaintiffs in error.
Ralph H. Cline, County Atty., of Lawton, for defendant in error.
Application on the part of Opal Weaver, plaintiff in error, for an order of this court permitting her to supersede the judgment of the county court of Comanche county entered in a proceeding for the forfeiture of an automobile instituted pursuant to 37 O. S. 1941 §§ 111-113.
The automobile was taken by officers from Ervin Weaver, petitioner's husband, while the same was being used by him for alleged illegal transportation of intoxicating liquors. Petitioner intervened, alleging ownership of the automobile and asserting other appropriate defense. The issues were determined against her and her husband, and they have lodged their appeal in this court.
"The respondent considers that the appellant should be granted bond to stay sale proceedings and preserve the status quo pending the appeal, but resists the return of the car which, in operation and effect, would be a nullification of the statute which aids so forcibly in the enforcement of the statutes against unlawful transportation of liquor in Okla."
Respondent takes the position that the petitioner would suffer no substantial injury by a stay of the proceedings, but says that it would be manifestly unjust and unfair to require the state to look to a bond for its remedy instead of a sale of the property in event the judgment is affirmed. In this connection it is urged that the statutes do not authorize supersedeas, and that the nature of cases of this kind is such that a return of the property to the claimant on appeal bond or forthcoming bond of any kind is not justified; that had the Legislature thought such procedure expedient, it could have provided therefor.
The statute, section 113, supra, relating to appeals in such case merely provides that "appeals may be allowed as in civil cases."
Respondent recognizes our statutory as well as our inherent power to grant supersedeas or stay of execution in all cases where the particular statutes are silent on the subject. 12 O. S. 1941 § 974; In re Epley, 10 Okla. 631, 64 P. 18; Aycock v. Harriman, 185 Okla. 590, 95 P.2d 110. But it is urged that this case does not come within the statute or rule of law. Our attention is called to three cases from the State of Georgia wherein it was held, says respondent, under a statute similar to our own, that the owner of a confiscated automobile could not gain possession thereof by giving a forthcoming bond, or other bond, pending the proceedings. Commercial Credit Co. v. Johnson, 166 Ga. 316, 143 S.E. 377; Bernstein v. Higginbotham, 148 Ga. 353, 96 S.E. 866; Carter v. International Harvester Co., 51 G. App. 661, 181 S.E. 229. Respondent cites also State v. 1920 Studebaker Touring Car, 120 Or. 254, 251 P. 701; Moss v. Summit County, 60 Utah, 252, 208 P. 507, allegedly to the same effect.
There is some discussion in the briefs concerning the question whether the automobile fell within that class of contraband in which no property right exists as provided by 37 O. S. 1941 § 72, but the question is of no particular importance. Said section 72 is a part of the liquor laws enacted prior to the enactment of the sections, supra, authorizing the seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used in the transportation of liquor, and we have held that such vehicles did not fall within the class of property made subject to forfeiture by the prior statutes. Prior to the enactment of said sections 111-113 automobiles were not affected by the liquor laws. Mozley v. Coleman, 88 Okla. 118, 212 P. 431. The latter sections do not purport to deprive the owners of confiscated automobiles from claiming a property right therein.
This court has recognized two remedies for the third party claimant in cases of this character. He may maintain a replevin action against the officers (Gillespey v. Denny, 89 Okla. 270, 215 P. 430), or he may intervene in the forfeiture proceedings and there have his right to possession adjudicated (Commercial Credit Co. v. State, 160 Okla. 201, 16 P.2d 879). The petitioner has elected to pursue the latter remedy. In either event the claimant should not be deprived of the use of the property pending the litigation unless he is fully protected against its deterioration and the loss of its use. The law does not favor forfeitures though the police powers may be involved, and statutes are strictly construed to avoid the same; and a forfeiture of the use is a forfeiture of the property. One should be allowed the use of his property in such case on posting proper security, or, if he is to be deprived of that use, he should be secured against loss in event of his ultimate success in the litigation.
The state has no property right in seized contraband until the litigation is concluded in its favor. It cannot claim a loss until then. But the property should be held in status quo or its value preserved in some proper manner so that the state may, in event of successful termination of the litigation, be protected, and receive the value of the property as of the date of the seizure.
"In cases where the statute makes no provision for a supersedeas, or a stay of the judgment or final order, as a matter of right, the trial court may, in the exercise of its discretion, allow a supersedeas or stay on such terms as it may prescribe for the protection of the parties, pending an appeal to the appellate court."
We look upon this case as one wherein the circumstances justify our affirmative action in an effort to properly protect the parties, and we hold that the automobile in question should be delivered to the petitioner upon her execution of a written undertaking, to be approved by the clerk of the trial court, in double the value of said automobile, which said value as apparently agreed by the parties is that of the original purchase price when new, and said undertaking to be to the effect that the petitioner will pay to respondent an amount of money equal to the value of the automobile at the time of its seizure in event the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
WELCH, C. J., CORN, V. C. J., and RILEY, HURST, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. OSBORN and BAYLESS, JJ., absent.


text:
Complex diffusive scattering media pose significant challenges for light focusing as well as optical imaging to be implemented in practice. Recently, it has been demonstrated that the wavefront shaping technique can be applied to realize focusing and imaging through scattering medium. Here we report dynamic optical manipulation of particles through turbid media by employing the interleaved segment wavefront correction method, which is an improved genetic algorithm providing faster convergence speed and higher peak to background ratio. Manipulating micro-beads behind a scattering medium along both one and two dimensional predesigned trajectories in real time has been successfully demonstrated.
N. Ji, D. E. Milkie, and E. Betzig, “Adaptive optics via pupil segmentation for high-resolution imaging in biological tissues,” Nat. Methods 7(2), 141–147 (2010).
M. Loktev, O. Soloviev, S. Savenko, and G. Vdovin, “Speckle imaging through turbulent atmosphere based on adaptable pupil segmentation,” Opt. Lett. 36(14), 2656–2658 (2011).
J. Tang, R. N. Germain, and M. Cui, “Superpenetration optical microscopy by iterative multiphoton adaptive compensation technique,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109(22), 8434–8439 (2012).
S. Popoff, G. Lerosey, M. Fink, A. C. Boccara, and S. Gigan, “Image transmission through an opaque material,” Nat. Commun. 1(6), 81 (2010).
I. M. Vellekoop, A. Lagendijk, and A. Mosk, “Exploiting disorder for perfect focusing,” Nat. Photonics 4(5), 320–322 (2010).
M. Rueckel, J. A. Mack-Bucher, and W. Denk, “Adaptive wavefront correction in two-photon microscopy using coherence-gated wavefront sensing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103(46), 17137–17142 (2006).
T. Čižmár, M. Mazilu, and K. Dholakia, “In situ wavefront correction and its application to micromanipulation,” Nat. Photonics 4(6), 388–394 (2010).
X. L. Deán-Ben, H. Estrada, and D. Razansky, “Shaping volumetric light distribution through turbid media using real-time three-dimensional opto-acoustic feedback,” Opt. Lett. 40(4), 443–446 (2015).
Z. Yu, H. Li, and P. Lai, “Wavefront shaping and its application to enhance photoacoustic imaging,” Appl. Sci. (Basel) 7(12), 1320 (2017).
R. W. Bowman, A. J. Wright, and M. J. Padgett, “An SLM-based Shack–Hartmann wavefront sensor for aberration correction in optical tweezers,” J. Opt. 12(12), 124004 (2010).
G. Volpe, L. Kurz, A. Callegari, G. Volpe, and S. Gigan, “Speckle optical tweezers: micromanipulation with random light fields,” Opt. Express 22(15), 18159–18167 (2014).
V. Shvedov, A. V. Rode, Y. V. Izdebskaya, D. Leykam, A. S. Desyatnikov, W. Krolikowski, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Laser speckle field as a multiple particle trap,” J. Opt. 12(12), 124003 (2010).
V. G. Shvedov, A. V. Rode, Y. V. Izdebskaya, A. S. Desyatnikov, W. Krolikowski, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Selective trapping of multiple particles by volume speckle field,” Opt. Express 18(3), 3137–3142 (2010).
O. Katz, E. Small, and Y. Silberberg, “Looking around corners and through thin turbid layers in real time with scattered incoherent light,” Nat. Photonics 6(8), 549–553 (2012).
M. Nixon, O. Katz, E. Small, Y. Bromberg, A. A. Friesem, Y. Silberberg, and N. Davidson, “Real-time wavefront shaping through scattering media by all-optical feedback,” Nat. Photonics 7(11), 919–924 (2013).
H. He, Y. Guan, and J. Zhou, “Image restoration through thin turbid layers by correlation with a known object,” Opt. Express 21(10), 12539–12545 (2013).
M. Cui, “Parallel wavefront optimization method for focusing light through random scattering media,” Opt. Lett. 36(6), 870–872 (2011).
I. Freund, M. Rosenbluh, and S. Feng, “Memory effects in propagation of optical waves through disordered media,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61(20), 2328–2331 (1988).
R. Li, T. Peng, Y. Liang, Y. Yang, B. Yao, X. Yu, J. Min, M. Lei, S. Yan, C. Zhang, and T. Ye, “Interleaved segment correction achieves higher improvement factors in using genetic algorithm to optimize light focusing through scattering media,” J. Opt. 19(10), 105602 (2017).
O. Katz, E. Small, and Y. J. N. p. Silberberg, “Looking around corners and through thin turbid layers in real time with scattered incoherent light,” Biomed Opt. Express 6(8), 549–553 (2012).
Silberberg, Y. J. N. p.
» Visualization 1 Experimental results for refocusing scattered light and trapping particles through a scattering medium by using the ISC method, associated with Fig. 3.
» Visualization 2 Experimental results of manipulating a silica bead through a scattering media in a one dimensional trajectory, associated with Fig. 4.
» Visualization 3 Experimental results of manipulating silica beads through a scattering media along a rectangular trajectory, associated with Fig. 5.
» Visualization 4 Experimental results of manipulating silica beads through a scattering media along a circular trajectory, associated with Fig. 5.
Fig. 1 Principle of the interleaved segment correction (ISC) method. (a) The pixel array of an SLM is divided into 180 × 180 segments, and each segment contains 6 × 6 pixels; (b) All segments are divided into nine interleaved groups, as marked by the numbers; (c) Each individual section is optimized in sequence, the optimized phase in each segment is labeled with different colors; (d) Final correction phase, which is obtained by merging the 9 independent correction phases.
Fig. 2 Experimental setup for demonstrations of refocusing of the scattered light and particle manipulation behind a scattering medium. L: Lens, M: Mirror, SLM: Spatial light modulator, Obj: Objective lens, BS: Beam splitter, F: Filter. The inset displays the scattering medium S (cover glass coated with a thin layer of milk) and the cuvette containing particles (silica beads with diameter of 3 µm).
Fig. 3 Experimental results for refocusing scattered light and trapping particles through a scattering medium by using the ISC method. (a) The speckles behind the scattering medium without phase correction; (b) Refocused scattered light with a correction phase after 900 optimization iteration; (c) The optimized phase pattern; (d) Refocusing 3 points simultaneously through the scattering medium; (e) The corresponding optimized phase pattern for refocusing the scattering light into 3 spots; (f)-(i) Trapping a bead through scattering medium by using the refocused beam, where the white triangle marks the focal point of the recollected scattered light (see Visualization 1); (j) Capturing three beads simultaneously through the scattering medium (Scale bar: 10 µm).
Fig. 4 Experimental results of manipulating a silica bead through a scattering media in a one dimensional trajectory. (a)-(e) display the time resolved particle manipulation process (see Visualization 2), where the dotted and solid circles indicate the starting and current positions of the silica bead, and the dashed arrow points the particle moving direction. (Scale bar: 10 µm).
Fig. 5 Experimental results of manipulating silica beads through a scattering media along two dimensional trajectories. (a)-(e) and (f)-(j) display the time resolved particle motion along a rectangular and circular trajectory(see Visualization 3 and Visualization 4), respectively. The white arrow indicates the moving direction of the trapped bead, and the dotted line traces the trajectory of the bead. (Scale bar: 10 µm).
Fig. 6 Experimental evaluation of the range of the memory effect. (a) Focused scattering light at different blazed grating phase; (b) The normalized light intensity of the focal point corresponding to (a) as a function of the distance shifted from the central position.
Fig. 7 Comparison of two different approaches for generating multiple focal points behind the scattering medium. (a) Result by superimposing a multi-focusing phase hologram and the optimized phase (CGH); (b) Result by directly optimizing multiple focal points with the ISC method (3 Points); (c) Intensity profiles along the white dashed lines in (a) and (b).
(2) P= k 1 x+ k 2 y.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Under Illinois law, a landowner is not liable for injuries sustained by plaintiffs who slipped on water that is tracked into a building from natural accumulations of substances outside such as ice, snow or water. Swartz v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 264 Ill. App. 3d 254, 265 (1st Dist. 1993); Lohan v. Walgreens Co., 140 Ill. App. 3d 171, 173-74 (1st Dist. 1986). A landowner has no duty to protect others from tracked-in water even if aware that the presence of water has resulted in a dangerous condition. Nor will a voluntary undertaking to remove tracked-in water or minimize the hazard posed by it create such a duty unless these efforts exacerbate the danger. Instead, a landowner will only be held liable if the plaintiff’s “injury occurred as a result of water produced or accumulated by artificial causes or in an unnatural way or by defendant’s own use of the area concerned and creation of the condition.” Swartz, 264 Ill. App. 3d at 265, citing Walker v. Chicago Transit Authority, 92 Ill. App. 3d 120, 122 (1980).
Illinois courts have applied an exception to the “natural accumulations” rule where a store owner, who generally has no duty to remove tracked-in water, can be liable if the plaintiff proves that “the material used in the flooring is especially slippery and dangerous when wet.” Lee v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 2001 WL 604189 at *6 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2001), citing Buscaglia v. United States, 25 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 1994) (recognizing exception that the composition of the floor, either by itself or in combination with an accumulation of water, could be basis for liability); Lohan, 140 Ill. App. 3d 171 (finding that store owners had no duty to remove tracked-in rainwater, absent allegations that materials used in the floor were particularly slippery and dangerous when wet); Sommese v. Maling Bro’s, Inc. 36 Ill. 2d 263, 266 (Ill. 1966) (holding “it was a jury question as to whether the defendant knew or should have known that the material used in the composition of the floor, upon becoming wet and damp, became very slippery and dangerous and that the defendant failed to warn the person lawfully on its premises of its unsafe condition).
In Lee, the plaintiff brought a negligence action after he slipped and fell on the tile inside the entrance door to a defendant-owned gasoline station/convenience market. 2001 WL 604189 at *1 (N.D. Ill. May 31, 2001). The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that it cannot be held liability based on the “natural accumulations” rule. The plaintiff’s expert, Mr. Eugene Holland, testified that the tile used, “which showed a borderline tendency between slipperiness and non-slipperiness, and the flat surface of the threshold itself, are hazardous to business invitees. Id. at *3. The court stated that although there “might not be liability if Defendant had a floor of common accepted design, as the case law shows, some slight direct evidence of a defect in flooring is enough to send the case to a jury.” Id., citing Tracy v. Village of Lombard, 116 Ill. App. 3d 563 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983). Accordingly, the court held the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence – “consisting mainly of expert testimony” – to fall under the exception to the natural accumulation rule, and denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Qualified personal injury lawyers in Chicago must become familiar with this case law before bringing an action arising out of a slip and fall on a wet surface. To survive a motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs must show, through expert testimony, that the flooring on which the plaintiff slipped and fell was made of a material, which became especially slippery and dangerous when wet. Therefore, preferably prior to filing a lawsuit, the personal injury lawyer should retain an expert to perform a “coefficient of friction test” on the tile flooring at issue.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,375, May 22, 2006.
May 22, 2006, Alert No. 1,375.
5/18. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) introduced HR 5417 [5 pages in PDF], the "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006".
The bill would also provide exceptions "to protect the security of such network", "to give priority to emergency communications", and "to prevent a violation of a Federal or State law, or to comply with an order of a court to enforce such law".
The bill would also define the term "broadband network provider" broadly. It would mean "means a person engaged in commerce that owns, controls, operates, or resells any facility used to provide broadband network service to the public, by whatever technology and without regard to whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free".
The bill would also define "broadband network service" broadly. It would mean any "2-way transmission service that connects to the Internet and transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least one direction, irrespective of whether such transmission is provided separately or as a component of another service".
Rep. Boucher (at left) stated in a release that "The measure which we are introducing will assure that the status quo is preserved and that the market power broadband providers now exercise over transmission is not extended to control of content". He added that "This measure is particularly important and timely because H.R. 5252, the Energy and Commerce Committee video franchising measure, is insufficient to ensure that broadband network providers do not abuse their market power to discriminate against competitive Internet content or services."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) stated in the same release that "The Internet has revolutionized the way Americans communicate with one another and do business. It's just common sense to keep that revolution where it belongs--in the hands of ordinary individuals instead of a handful of big corporations. Our bill will prevent an Information Superhighway Hijacking."
This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It would amend antitrust law.
There is also a House Commerce Committee network neutrality bill, HR 5273, the "Network Neutrality Act of 2006 ", introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and others on May 2, 2006. See, story titled "Rep. Markey Introduces Network Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,363, May 3, 2006.
Herschell Abbott, of BellSouth, stated in a release that "This bill proposes to fix a problem that does not exist. It proposes to regulate the internet that has developed in an atmosphere of freedom devoid of regulation. That is a bad idea. Consumers are poorly served by this legislation. The end result of this legislation is that consumers will be forced to bear the entire cost of the internet. Moreover, if network service providers cannot offer customers a quality product, something the details of this legislation would all but prohibit, then the opportunity for a bigger, better, faster broadband will be something available only in other countries. We oppose this legislation."
Earl Comstock, of Comptel, stated in a release that "Chairman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Conyers have always been staunch advocates for consumers and a competitive communications industry. This bill demonstrates that members of the House Judiciary understand the dangers posed by the reconsolidation of Ma Bell and the adverse impact that it could have on the open Internet. This bill is a great step in the right direction toward establishing much needed safeguards, especially in light of the FCC's complete capitulation to those who would restrict access to the Internet."
The Free Press, Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, Media Access Project and U.S. PIRG released a joint statement in support of the bill. They wrote that the bill is an "important step toward preserving a free and open Internet. From its inception, the Internet has prospered on a foundation of equality and neutrality, open to all and protected from discrimination by unnecessary gatekeepers. Network Neutrality is about preserving the Internet as truly free market that encourages competition and innovation."
5/19. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and others introduced S 2917 [9 pages in PDF], the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act". It would amend Title I of the Communications Act by adding a section titled "Internet Neutrality".
Sen. Snowe described her bill. "The legislation we introduce today keeps the rules where they always have been, until last year. First, the bill bars network operators from blocking, degrading or impairing Internet traffic. Second, the bill ensures that network operators are not allowed to create a two-tiered Internet--an Internet that treats those who can afford to do business with large nationwide broadband providers more favorably than those who do not. Virtually everyone has called for more widespread deployment of broadband facilities: this bill ensures that those high-speed networks are available for all users of the Internet." See, Congressional Record, May 19, 2006, at Page S4840.
She also stated that "If we allow companies to set up tollbooths along the Information Superhighway, we will fundamentally alter every Internet user's experience and stifle the entrepreneurship that flourishes on the world's last remaining frontier. Network operators should not have the power to decide which Web pages load faster, which content their customers can access, and whose data has the highest priority. Network operators already enjoy near-monopolistic privileges in many markets across the country. Should this market power now be extended to messaging services, streaming video, or online shopping, just to name a few?"
Back on March 2, 2006, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is also a cosponsor of S 2917, introduced S 2360, the "Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006". See, story titled "Sen. Wyden Introduces Net Neutrality Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,324, Tuesday, March 7, 2006.
5/17. Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) introduced HRes 819, a two paragraph resolution regarding the National Security Agency's (NSA) access to records of communications companies.
It provides as follows. "Requesting the President and directing the Attorney General to submit to the House of Representatives all documents in the possession of the President and the Attorney General relating to requests made by the National Security Agency and other Federal agencies to telephone service providers requesting access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States and communications originating and terminating within the United States without a warrant."
"Resolved, That the President is requested and the Attorney General is directed to submit to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents in the possession of the President and the Attorney General, including all legal opinions, relating to requests made without a warrant by the National Security Agency or other Federal departments and agencies to telephone service providers, including wireless telephone service providers, for access to telephone communications records of persons in the United States (other than as authorized under title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) or chapter 119 or 121 of title 18, United States Code), subject to necessary redactions or requirements for handling classified documents."
There are no cosponsors. This resolution was referred to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Rep. Wexler is a member.
Rep. Wexler (at left) also issued a release in which he wrote that on May 12, 2006, he "sent letters to executives at AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon requesting that they immediately stop providing their customers' phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA), until an independent investigation has been conducted to determine the full scope and legality of the Bush Administration’s domestic spying program."
Rep. Wexler's resolution, and his letters, follow the article published on May 11, 2006, by the USA Today that states that "The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth". See also, story titled "Bush Responds to USA Today Story Regarding NSA Database of Phone Calls" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,369, May 12, 2006, and story titled "BellSouth and Verizon Attack USA Today Story" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,372, May 17, 2006.
In addition, Rep. Wexler is a cosponsor of HR 5371, the "Lawful Intelligence and Surveillance of Terrorists in an Emergency by NSA Act", or "LISTEN Act". Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced HR 5371 on May 11, 2006.
HR 5371 provides, in part, that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, chapters 119 and 121 of title 18, United States Code, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance may be conducted."
5/19. A grand jury of the U.S. District Court (CDCal) returned a superceding indictment [105 pages in PDF] that charges the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman (MWBS), David J. Bershad (a partner in MWBS), Steven G. Schulman (a partner in MWBS), Seymour M. Lazar (a frequent class action plaintiff), and Paul T. Selzer (an attorney of Lazar) with various crimes associated with the bringing class action cases (including securities cases).
The indictment, which covers the time period of 1981 through 2005, alleges various crimes associated with the payment of kickbacks to named plaintiffs in class action lawsuits filed by MWBS. It alleges that Bershad and Schulman "and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury agreed to and did secretly pay kickbacks to named plaintiffs in class actions and shareholder derivative actions in which MILBERG WEISS served as counsel."
Moreover, the indictment alleges that to conceal these illegal kickbacks, the defendants engaged "in various fraudulent and deceptive acts, practices, and devices".
The indictment alleges the payment of illegal kickbacks in class actions against Infinity Broadcasting, Barnesandnoble.com, Sun Microsystems, and numerous other publicly traded companies.
MWBS responded in a release that "The government's allegations of wrongdoing have been categorically denied by the indicted partners, and the firm intends to join with them in vigorously defending against the charges."
It continued that "The government's insistence that the firm waive attorney-client privileges as a condition to avoiding indictment is in derogation of one of the bedrock principles of American law and extended to parties the firm did not control. Governmental insistence on such broad waivers has been criticized by the American Bar Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and is currently being reviewed by Congress. The prosecutors also insisted that the firm make unfounded statements accusing its own partners of crimes and otherwise become an agent for the government. Unfortunately, the prosecutors insisted on indicting the firm unless it made these impossible concessions."
Lisa Rickard, President of the U.S. Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), stated in a release "The Chamber has long been concerned about the questionable practices of Milberg Weiss and has repeatedly sought an investigation into their activities by the Federal Government". However, she continued that "Apparently, the Justice Department based its decision to indict Milberg Weiss, at least in part, on the firm's refusal to waive its attorney-client privilege. The Chamber opposes any attempt to deny the constitutional right to attorney-client privilege to individuals and organizations. While there are many ways to demonstrate cooperation in an investigation, it is fundamentally wrong for anyone to be denied the right to consult freely and confidentially with their attorney."
The indictment alleges violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) (racketeering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 & 1346 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (money laundering conspiracy), 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (money laundering), 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1) (subscribing to false tax return), 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice), 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (criminal forfeiture), 18 U.S.C. § 1963 (criminal forfeiture), and 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 853 (criminal forfeiture).
The original indictment, which was unsealed last summer, charged only Lazar and Selzer. It did not charge MWBS, or any of its partners or attorneys. See, June 23, 2005, release of the U.S. Attorneys Office.
Debra Yang (at right), the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, stated in a release that "This case is about protecting the integrity of the justice system in America ... Class-action attorneys and named plaintiffs occupy positions of trust in which they assume responsibility to tell the truth and to disclose relevant information to the court. This indictment alleges a wholesale violation of this responsibility."
This case is USA v. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, David J. Bershad, Steven G. Schulman, Seymour M. Lazar, and Paul T. Selzer, U.S. District Court for the Central District of Los Angeles, D.C. No. CR 05–587(A)-DDP.
The Senate will meet at 1:00 PM. It will resume consideration of S 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006".
CANCELLED. 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce will host an event titled "The Telecommunications Economy: Internet Evolution and Innovation". The speaker will be David Farber of Carnegie Mellon University. The Chamber notice states that "There is a limited amount of reserved seating for credentialed journalists. For more information, or to register, contact" press at uschamber dot com or call 202-463-5682. Location: Room HC-6, Capitol Building.
12:30 PM. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) will give a speech. Location: Ballroom, National Press Club, 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor.
Around 5:30 PM. The Senate Finance Committee will meet to consider the nomination of Susan Schwab to be the U.S. Trade Representative. See, notice. Location: Room S-219, Capitol Building.
The House will meet at 9:00 AM for morning hour, and at 10:00 AM for legislative business. It will consider the agriculture appropriations bill. See, Republican Whip Notice.
9:30 AM. The Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) may hold a hearing titled "Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring Competition and Innovation". See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
CANCELLED. 10:00 AM. The House Judiciary Committee's (HJC) Subcommittee on Crime may hold a hearing on HR __, the "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2006." This bill contains a data retention mandate. Press contact: Jeff Lungren or Terry Shawn at 202-225-2492.
2:00 PM. The Senate Judiciary Committee's (SJC) Subcommittee on Intellectual Property may hold a hearing titled "Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms". See, notice. The SJC frequently cancels or postpones hearings without notice. Location: Room 226, Dirksen Building.
10:00 AM. The Senate Commerce Committee (SCC) will hold the second of two hearings on S 2686 [135 pages in PDF], the "Communications, Consumer's Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006". See, notice of hearing, statement [5 pages in PDF] by Sen. Stevens, and Sen. Stevens' section by section summary [7 pages in PDF]. See also, stories titled "Stevens Introduces Telecom Reform Bill" and "Section by Section Summary of Sen. Stevens' Telecom Reform Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 1,362, May 2, 2006. Press contact: Aaron Saunders (Stevens) at 202-224-3991 or Andy Davis (Inouye) at 202-224-4546. The hearing will be webcast by the SCC. Location: Room 106, Dirksen Building.
5/19. Randy May has founded, and is the President of, the Free State Foundation (FSF). He is currently Director of Communications Policy Studies at the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF). The FSF web site states that it is "a non-profit Maryland-based think tank. Its purpose is to promote, through research and educational activities, understanding of free market, limited government, and rule of law principles in Maryland and throughout the United States. FSF focuses on eliminating unnecessary and counterproductive regulatory mandates, reducing overly burdensome taxes, protecting individual and economic liberty, reforming civil liability laws, and making government more effective, efficient, and accountable." See also, PFF release. May will leave the PFF on May 31, 2006. As of June 1, 2006, May's contact information will include 301-299-3182 and rmay at freestatefoundation dot org.
5/19. President Bush announced his intent to designate Steven Aitken to be acting Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, effective June 3, 2006. See, White House release.
5/19. Jarrod Agen was named Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
5/17. Denise Michel was named Vice President - Policy Development at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). See, ICANN release.
5/19. President Bush gave a speech at Northern Kentucky University in which he referenced intercepted communications. He stated that "the enemy" is "cold blooded killers", "driven by an ideological fervor", that is "totalitarian in nature", and akin to "fascism and communism". He continued that "After all, they've told us what their ambitions are. It's in intercepted communications and the different ways of finding out information. They have made it clear in their communications with each other that democracies are soft, capitalism is a failed system, and that it's just a matter of time before the United States of America were to lose its nerve." He added that "They want to reestablish roots in a country like they did in Afghanistan so they can help topple moderate governments in the Middle East, as well as launch attacks against the United States of America. That's what they have said."
5/19. The Department of Commerce's (DOC) National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to award a sole source contract to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to perform Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) services. The NTIA stated in a release [PDF] that "These functions include coordination of the assignment for technical protocol parameters, administration of certain responsibilities associated with Internet DNS root zone management; and allocation of Internet Protocol Version (IPv4) and Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) address space".
5/19. The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) released its report [PDF] titled "Report on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints: 1st Quarter Calendar Year 2006".
5/18. The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF) released a paper [30 pages in PDF] titled "Canadian Quandary: Digital Rights Management, Access Protection, and Free Markets". The author is Michael Einhorn. See also, PFF release. In 1997 Canada agreed to ratify the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. These treaties require the signatories to provide "adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures" used by copyright holders to protect their works. Canada has not adopted enacting legislation. However, there is little in this paper about Canada. Rather, it is a review of digital rights management (DRM), anti-circumvention laws, peer to peer (P2P) music file sharing, and broadband deployment. It is a cross national study of developed nations. For example, it finds a statistical correlation between broadband deployment in these nations, and decreases in music CD sales. This paper is a defense of DRM and enforcement of property rights in digital works.