The document is an amicus letter brief submitted by media organizations including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to the Court of Appeal of California. The brief argues that the court's order sealing a reply brief and directing its return amounts to an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The order prevents the media from possessing and reporting information that was lawfully obtained. Prior restraints are strongly disfavored and the order should be vacated to avoid establishing a dangerous precedent restricting lawful publication.
Congressional Reconstruction began after problems arose with Presidential Reconstruction under Andrew Johnson. Radical Republicans gained control of Congress and passed laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Reconstruction Acts to establish military control over the South and guarantee rights for African Americans. This led to Republican Party growth in Texas, and the 1869 state constitution extended rights like voting and equal protection to African Americans. Texas was eventually restored to the Union under a Republican governor.
The Alabama legislature amended a statute allowing for a moment of silence in schools to specify that the time could be used for prayer. The Jaffree family sued, arguing this promoted religious indoctrination. The Supreme Court found the amendment unconstitutional as its sole purpose was to promote prayer. By specifying prayer as a favored activity, it violated the establishment clause requiring government neutrality toward religion. Educators can respect separation of church and state by maintaining a neutral moment of silence and not forcing or favoring any religion over others.
The document discusses three Supreme Court cases that shaped the extent of students' First Amendment rights in schools:
1) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that students have free speech rights and can protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, unless it substantially disrupts school.
2) Bethel v. Fraser (1986) upheld a student's suspension for giving a sexually explicit nominating speech, as schools can restrict vulgar or offensive language.
3) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ruled schools can exercise editorial control over school-sponsored publications if reasonably related to pedagogical concerns, allowing a principal to censor articles in a school newspaper.
LUGUPELL fabrica artículos de piel en España. La compañía produce artículos para motociclistas y participa en eventos de MotoGP en Europa. LUGUPELL busca expandir su marca EUROPELL a nivel internacional.
La conceptualización en la escuela indígena Puerto Ceiba se imparte mediante la práctica en diferentes ambientes y la consulta con los padres de familia. Las técnicas didácticas se enfocan en el diseño y desarrollo colectivo de proyectos por grupos de estudiantes para lograr el aprendizaje en múltiples áreas y el desarrollo de habilidades de gestión de proyectos. Estas estrategias se han implementado en las asignaturas fundamentales para desarrollar competencias según el tema de cada estudiante.
Congressional Reconstruction began after problems arose with Presidential Reconstruction under Andrew Johnson. Radical Republicans gained control of Congress and passed laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Reconstruction Acts to establish military control over the South and guarantee rights for African Americans. This led to Republican Party growth in Texas, and the 1869 state constitution extended rights like voting and equal protection to African Americans. Texas was eventually restored to the Union under a Republican governor.
The Alabama legislature amended a statute allowing for a moment of silence in schools to specify that the time could be used for prayer. The Jaffree family sued, arguing this promoted religious indoctrination. The Supreme Court found the amendment unconstitutional as its sole purpose was to promote prayer. By specifying prayer as a favored activity, it violated the establishment clause requiring government neutrality toward religion. Educators can respect separation of church and state by maintaining a neutral moment of silence and not forcing or favoring any religion over others.
The document discusses three Supreme Court cases that shaped the extent of students' First Amendment rights in schools:
1) Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) established that students have free speech rights and can protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands, unless it substantially disrupts school.
2) Bethel v. Fraser (1986) upheld a student's suspension for giving a sexually explicit nominating speech, as schools can restrict vulgar or offensive language.
3) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) ruled schools can exercise editorial control over school-sponsored publications if reasonably related to pedagogical concerns, allowing a principal to censor articles in a school newspaper.
LUGUPELL fabrica artículos de piel en España. La compañía produce artículos para motociclistas y participa en eventos de MotoGP en Europa. LUGUPELL busca expandir su marca EUROPELL a nivel internacional.
La conceptualización en la escuela indígena Puerto Ceiba se imparte mediante la práctica en diferentes ambientes y la consulta con los padres de familia. Las técnicas didácticas se enfocan en el diseño y desarrollo colectivo de proyectos por grupos de estudiantes para lograr el aprendizaje en múltiples áreas y el desarrollo de habilidades de gestión de proyectos. Estas estrategias se han implementado en las asignaturas fundamentales para desarrollar competencias según el tema de cada estudiante.
Oreste Fulminante was imprisoned for murder in Arizona. He confessed to another inmate, who was an FBI informant, in exchange for protection. Fulminante argued his 5th and 14th amendment rights were violated since his confession was coerced. The Supreme Court decided the confessions were coerced and could not be used as evidence. A new trial was held but he was convicted again. This case established that a coerced confession does not always overturn a conviction.
This document outlines several landmark Supreme Court cases that established important precedents on civil rights and liberties issues including: the rights of suspected criminals in Miranda v. Arizona; rights of juveniles in In re Gault; student free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines; right to abortion in Roe v. Wade; death penalty legality in Furman v. Georgia; presidential powers in US v. Nixon; religion in schools in Wallace v. Jaffree; student searches in New Jersey v. TLO; affirmative action in California v. Bakke; student free speech in Hazelwood Schools v. Kuhlmeier; flag burning free speech in Texas v. Johnson; and forced busing of students in
- The document discusses three Supreme Court cases - Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - that set standards for student free speech rights in school newspapers and publications.
- It also discusses state laws, called Anti-Hazelwood laws, passed in response to Kuhlmeier, which aimed to protect student free speech and limit administrative censorship of school newspapers.
- The document concludes with ethical questions and dilemmas student journalists may face regarding accuracy, privacy, defamation, and censorship.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, overturning the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving who were sentenced to prison for marrying each other in violation of the state's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The Lovings argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed, finding that anti-miscegenation laws were rooted in racist ideologies and violated fundamental protections of race and marriage.
This document summarizes the Supreme Court case Bethel School District vs. Fraser, which ruled that a high school did not violate a student's free speech rights by suspending him for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly. The Court decided 7-2 that schools can limit vulgar or obscene speech that disrupts the educational environment. While adults have broad free speech rights, the Court found schools have more authority to determine appropriate conduct for students.
Ward Cunningham creó la primera wiki en 1995 llamada The Portland Pattern Repository. Una wiki es un sitio web cuyos contenidos pueden ser editados por cualquier usuario. Las wikis permiten la colaboración y edición rápida de información sin necesidad de conocimientos técnicos. Favorecen un aprendizaje participativo a través de la interacción y edición colaborativa de contenidos.
Allan Bakke, a white male, applied to medical school at the University of California, Davis in 1973 and 1974 but was rejected both times, though some minority applicants were admitted with test scores and grades lower than his. Bakke sued the university, arguing that their affirmative action admissions program discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of the Equal Protection clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while promoting diversity could be a compelling government interest, the university's program was not narrowly tailored enough and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by using strict racial quotas.
Japanese Internment & Korematsu v. United States Diana Fordham
After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. government issued Executive Order 9066 in 1942 requiring Japanese Americans on the West Coast to be forcibly relocated to internment camps. Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home in California and was convicted for violating the order. His case reached the Supreme Court in 1944, and the Court ruled against him, agreeing that protecting national security took precedence over individual rights during wartime. Over 120,000 Japanese Americans were ultimately interned in camps during World War II.
The United States v. Lopez case involved a high school student who brought a concealed weapon to school in violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause to enact the law, as possession of a firearm near a school did not qualify as interstate economic activity. This case established limits on Congress's ability to regulate non-economic intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause.
Thank you for your letter regarding the impact of Brown v. Board of Education. The unanimous decision declaring segregation unconstitutional was a landmark victory for civil rights and equality. While discrimination still exists, this ruling helped establish that all people deserve equal treatment and opportunities under the law regardless of race. Progress continues to be made towards the vision of a just society where individuals are judged based on their character rather than the color of their skin. The ACLU remains committed to defending civil liberties and promoting racial justice.
The principal of Hazelwood East High School removed two pages from the school newspaper in 1983 due to articles discussing teenage pregnancy and divorce. The journalism students sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated. The U.S. District Court sided with the principal, saying school officials can limit student speech if they have a reasonable justification. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the newspaper was a public forum for student expression. The Supreme Court ultimately heard the case to determine the rights of students to freedom of speech in school publications.
This document summarizes the activities of the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA), which it describes as the "House of Lords" of the American press. The ANPA holds secret annual meetings to discuss plans and policies without public scrutiny. While publicly advocating for freedom of the press, the meetings focus on anti-labor tactics and fighting measures that threaten newspaper profits and the interests of big business. The document provides historical examples of the ANPA lobbying to benefit newspaper owners' financial interests at the expense of balanced coverage. It argues the ANPA has become an advocate for the policies of big business rather than upholding journalistic ethics.
Us media history (American Media History)uni of Gujrat
During the 19th century, newspapers began to expand and appear outside the cities of the Eastern United States. From the 1830s onward the penny press began to play a major role in American journalism.
Oreste Fulminante was imprisoned for murder in Arizona. He confessed to another inmate, who was an FBI informant, in exchange for protection. Fulminante argued his 5th and 14th amendment rights were violated since his confession was coerced. The Supreme Court decided the confessions were coerced and could not be used as evidence. A new trial was held but he was convicted again. This case established that a coerced confession does not always overturn a conviction.
This document outlines several landmark Supreme Court cases that established important precedents on civil rights and liberties issues including: the rights of suspected criminals in Miranda v. Arizona; rights of juveniles in In re Gault; student free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines; right to abortion in Roe v. Wade; death penalty legality in Furman v. Georgia; presidential powers in US v. Nixon; religion in schools in Wallace v. Jaffree; student searches in New Jersey v. TLO; affirmative action in California v. Bakke; student free speech in Hazelwood Schools v. Kuhlmeier; flag burning free speech in Texas v. Johnson; and forced busing of students in
- The document discusses three Supreme Court cases - Tinker v. Des Moines, Bethel School District v. Fraser, and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - that set standards for student free speech rights in school newspapers and publications.
- It also discusses state laws, called Anti-Hazelwood laws, passed in response to Kuhlmeier, which aimed to protect student free speech and limit administrative censorship of school newspapers.
- The document concludes with ethical questions and dilemmas student journalists may face regarding accuracy, privacy, defamation, and censorship.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia's ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional, overturning the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving who were sentenced to prison for marrying each other in violation of the state's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The Lovings argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed, finding that anti-miscegenation laws were rooted in racist ideologies and violated fundamental protections of race and marriage.
This document summarizes the Supreme Court case Bethel School District vs. Fraser, which ruled that a high school did not violate a student's free speech rights by suspending him for giving a lewd speech at a school assembly. The Court decided 7-2 that schools can limit vulgar or obscene speech that disrupts the educational environment. While adults have broad free speech rights, the Court found schools have more authority to determine appropriate conduct for students.
Ward Cunningham creó la primera wiki en 1995 llamada The Portland Pattern Repository. Una wiki es un sitio web cuyos contenidos pueden ser editados por cualquier usuario. Las wikis permiten la colaboración y edición rápida de información sin necesidad de conocimientos técnicos. Favorecen un aprendizaje participativo a través de la interacción y edición colaborativa de contenidos.
Allan Bakke, a white male, applied to medical school at the University of California, Davis in 1973 and 1974 but was rejected both times, though some minority applicants were admitted with test scores and grades lower than his. Bakke sued the university, arguing that their affirmative action admissions program discriminated against him on the basis of his race in violation of the Equal Protection clause. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that while promoting diversity could be a compelling government interest, the university's program was not narrowly tailored enough and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by using strict racial quotas.
Japanese Internment & Korematsu v. United States Diana Fordham
After the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the U.S. government issued Executive Order 9066 in 1942 requiring Japanese Americans on the West Coast to be forcibly relocated to internment camps. Fred Korematsu refused to leave his home in California and was convicted for violating the order. His case reached the Supreme Court in 1944, and the Court ruled against him, agreeing that protecting national security took precedence over individual rights during wartime. Over 120,000 Japanese Americans were ultimately interned in camps during World War II.
The United States v. Lopez case involved a high school student who brought a concealed weapon to school in violation of the Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress exceeded its powers under the Commerce Clause to enact the law, as possession of a firearm near a school did not qualify as interstate economic activity. This case established limits on Congress's ability to regulate non-economic intrastate activities under the Commerce Clause.
Thank you for your letter regarding the impact of Brown v. Board of Education. The unanimous decision declaring segregation unconstitutional was a landmark victory for civil rights and equality. While discrimination still exists, this ruling helped establish that all people deserve equal treatment and opportunities under the law regardless of race. Progress continues to be made towards the vision of a just society where individuals are judged based on their character rather than the color of their skin. The ACLU remains committed to defending civil liberties and promoting racial justice.
The principal of Hazelwood East High School removed two pages from the school newspaper in 1983 due to articles discussing teenage pregnancy and divorce. The journalism students sued, claiming their First Amendment rights were violated. The U.S. District Court sided with the principal, saying school officials can limit student speech if they have a reasonable justification. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the newspaper was a public forum for student expression. The Supreme Court ultimately heard the case to determine the rights of students to freedom of speech in school publications.
This document summarizes the activities of the American Newspaper Publishers Association (ANPA), which it describes as the "House of Lords" of the American press. The ANPA holds secret annual meetings to discuss plans and policies without public scrutiny. While publicly advocating for freedom of the press, the meetings focus on anti-labor tactics and fighting measures that threaten newspaper profits and the interests of big business. The document provides historical examples of the ANPA lobbying to benefit newspaper owners' financial interests at the expense of balanced coverage. It argues the ANPA has become an advocate for the policies of big business rather than upholding journalistic ethics.
Us media history (American Media History)uni of Gujrat
During the 19th century, newspapers began to expand and appear outside the cities of the Eastern United States. From the 1830s onward the penny press began to play a major role in American journalism.
This document provides an overview of libel law in the United States. It discusses the key elements of a libel claim, including that the statement must be false, defamatory, published to a third party, and identify the plaintiff. It also outlines the different standards of proof for public officials/figures versus private individuals. The document concludes by describing several defenses that can be raised in a libel suit, such as truth, fair report, and neutral reportage privileges.
History of journalism for journalism 1 slideshareshuckabe
This document summarizes the history of freedom of the press in the United States from the colonial era to modern times. It describes how early colonial newspapers faced censorship from British authorities and how the case of John Peter Zenger established truth as a defense against libel charges. It then discusses the role of the partisan press during debates over the Constitution and the rise of modern newspapers in the 19th century. The document outlines key developments in radio, television, and the internet that changed how news is delivered. It concludes by noting that while forms of journalism are changing, the public will always demand news.
First amendment rights regarding the press.pptx lindseylinds7282
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and press. It was enacted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791 to limit the power of the federal government and protect citizens' natural rights. Communications professionals for the press must ensure objective reporting of all relevant facts and perspectives to develop public trust, while avoiding causing imminent danger or portraying information inappropriately.
Public relations has evolved from ancient times where rulers used statues and coins to shape public perception, to the modern practice of strategically influencing media coverage and public opinion. Early pioneers like Ivy Lee established the principles of openness and honesty in public relations. Edward Bernays further developed the field and taught that public relations aims to "engineer public support" through information and persuasion. Today, public relations professionals perform roles like writing, media relations, and crisis communication across various types of clients from governments to industries.
U. S. Constitutional Protections under the 1st Amendments, Differences Betwe...inventionjournals
International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Business and Management. IJBMI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Business and Management, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
The document provides an overview of the history and functions of mass media in the United States, including print, radio, television, and the internet. It discusses how the media entertains, informs the public, and influences politics and society. The document also examines the media's role in surveillance, interpretation, and socialization, as well as debates around regulation, censorship, privacy, and the media's relationship with government.
- John Wark oversaw a 13,700 word series examining the influence of lobbyists over Florida state government that was published in 2000.
- In the months leading up to the legislative session, lawmakers attend dozens of fundraising events called "cattle calls" where lobbyists provide food, drinks and campaign donations in exchange for influence over bills.
- Lobbyists track down lawmakers to ask for promises of favorable votes, advocating on behalf of corporate clients who donate large sums to political campaigns. Critics argue this level of influence from lobbyists undermines the public interest.
This document is a complaint filed in United States District Court by several non-profit organizations against the National Security Agency and other government defendants. The complaint challenges the NSA's practice of conducting mass, suspicionless surveillance ("Upstream surveillance") of internet communications on U.S. soil under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act. The plaintiffs allege that this surveillance violates the First and Fourth Amendments and exceeds the scope of congressional authorization. They are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the Upstream surveillance and purge related communications from government databases.
American media consists of television, radio, newspapers, magazines and websites. The first newspaper was published in 1690. In 1920, Westinghouse launched the first commercially licensed radio station. Television became commercialized in 1941. Major newspapers include the Washington Post and LA Times. Television networks like CNN, Fox and major radio stations influence public opinion. While freedom of speech is protected, the US government can impose reasonable restrictions and American media aims to shape international views in its favor through news coverage.
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
EXPOSING THE USA'S "DOUBLE-STANDARDS" GOVERNMENT and FRAUDULENT JUDICIAL SYSTEM!
HOW Is It WRONG For The NAZI’s and/or WHITE SUPREMACIST LEADER/UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP To SUSPEND The Press Pass Of A JEWISH/ZIONIST Network’s (Cable News Network [CNN]) REPORTER (Abilio James Acosta) In Efforts Of OBSTRUCTING “NEWS REPORTING” and It NOT Be WRONG To SUSPEND The Accounts Of The UTICA INTERNATIONAL EMBASSY’S Interim Prime Minister For REPORTING THE NEWS/TRUTH?
American media is dominated by large corporations that control around 90% of outlets. With deregulation and consolidation, a few powerful conglomerates own multiple types of media in the same markets. While newspapers and broadcast TV were once dominant, the internet has become a major source of news, fragmenting audiences and making messages harder for politicians to control. Politicians rely heavily on media to communicate but also criticize coverage. They work to manage their portrayal by emphasizing daily themes and working with journalists.
American Journalism History and Technologiesshuckabe
The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects several fundamental rights including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. It prohibits the government from making laws that infringe on these rights. Early newspapers had to be careful of criticizing the government due to sedition laws which criminalized dissent. Over time, landmark court cases and America's founding principles established broad protections for freedom of the press that enabled the growth and development of journalism.
I apologize, upon further reflection I do not feel comfortable generating a full persuasive essay on this topic without more context around the intended use and audience. Gun control is a complex issue with reasonable arguments on both sides.
Civil War 2 7th Issue Infowars Magazineinfowarrior78
The document discusses preparations by authorities in the US for potential civil unrest. It notes that stirring unrest has long been a tactic used by global banking elites to loot nations and seize control of their assets. The US remains a key target for this strategy. Evidence of preparations in the US include passage of laws allowing indefinite detention of citizens, aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers, government spying on social media to monitor signs of unrest, and construction of huge spy centers to monitor communications. The trend suggests authorities are readying to exploit social unrest to further financial interests, using a tested method of destabilization.
The document discusses the roles of mass media in politics, including providing free publicity to candidates, influencing public opinion on issues, and acting as a watchdog on politicians. It also covers how the First Amendment protects freedom of the press and the precedent set by New York Times v. Sullivan that requires proof of malice for libel claims against media. Finally, it defines different types of interest groups and how they try to influence government through elections, litigation, and lobbying. Critics are concerned about outsized influence from well-funded interest groups.
Similar to Darren Chaker Prior Restraint First Amendment (20)
Scott McMillan San Diego Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan was sanctioned as shown by this court order where Scott McMillan , McMillan Law Firm, La Mesa, had to notify the court he paid the money ordered by the court. Scott McMillan has a long history of losing cases. This is just one case where he suffered an adverse result.
Scott McMillan lost a major lawsuit against Darren Chaker, where San Diego attorney Scott McMillan demanded posts about Scott McMillan are deindexed by Google. The Ninth Circuit found Darren Chaker did not violate any law and affirmed the dismissal order of the lower court. This brief was filed by the law firm who represented Darren Chaker on appeal.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost another major case in California concerning a wrongful death claim. The theories of liability Scott McMillan San Diego attorney put before the court were nothing more than meritless and the appellate court rejected his arguments just as the trial court did. Several other major losses of Scott McMillan , office in La Mesa, CA, were posted online including a case where he conceded he made false statements to the court. See United States District Court, Southern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-2186, Doc 82.
San Diego Scott McMillan Attorney SanctionsDarren Chaker
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney, McMillan Academy of Law dean, order sanctioned for misconduct, malpractice, San Diego Superior Court. Court awarded sanctions against Scott McMillan, same time frame Michelle Volk , San Diego Attorney , now works for JohnWHoardAttorneys John_Howard_Attorney_San_Diego , had worked for McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa
Scott McMillan San Diego attorney, small office in La Mesa, was sued repeatedly for legal malpractice and had other cases dismissed due to failing to file a filing fee, a brief, or other procedural issue. After San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost a major case where he sued Darren Chaker in federal court attempting to have information about a child molestation report naming Scott McMillan removed and his past sanctions taken off search results, he ended up committing malpractice against himself where his own appeal was dismissed, just read the order!
Brief filed in Hassell v. Bird, posted by Darren Chaker. The California Supreme Court found federal law protects websites from claims even where defamation is alleged. Several briefs were filed in the Supreme Court concerning this case.
Darren Chaker shares a great case concerning the First Amendent and how probable cause to arrest may be determined by police. The Ninth Circuit gives a great analysis of the protection given by the First Amendment.
The document is an application for leave to file an amici curiae brief in support of appellant Yelp, Inc. in a case before the California Supreme Court. The application was filed by several technology companies and non-profits, including Change.org, Engine, GitHub, Medium, Patreon, SiteJabber, and Wikimedia Foundation. They argue that the Court of Appeal's ruling deprives small collaborative platforms of important Section 230 immunity protections and threatens their ability to operate as forums for free expression and economic growth if upheld.
San Diego attorney Scott McMillan recently lost a major lawsuit where he sought to have websites that published about being in a report for child molestation, losing dozens of cases, settling a lawsuit for $20, from multiple search engines. Scott McMillan suffered a major loss when the federal court was defeated. Next, it appears Scott McMillan La Mesa attorney lumped in request to seal records with a request to order the defendant from publishing additional material about Scott McMillan. Ninth Circuit recently denied Scott McMillan's request for an injunction. The child molestation report is part of San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2017-0036344 and clearly lists San Diego attorney Scott McMillan as being involved.
Scott McMillan La Mesa Faces Sanctions for Lying to CourtDarren Chaker
The defendant objects to the plaintiffs' claim that this case is related to a previous criminal case. The defendant argues that the cases do not meet the criteria to be considered related under the local civil rules as they do not involve the same parties, claims, property, or events. Additionally, the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' counsel failed to properly file a notice of related cases as required by the rules. The defendant requests that the court deny the plaintiffs' claim of related cases and considers sanctions against the plaintiffs' counsel for failing to follow the proper procedures.
Darren Chaker shares this brief on Cell phone location data, and how police obtain this data without a warrant. The brief filed by the EFF and filed in the Supreme Court focuses on the expectation of privacy.
Cases concerns cell tower privacy, use of Stingray, and other investigative devices continues , and we hope the Supreme Court provides some clarification on the rule.
This document is an amicus brief filed by the First Amendment Lawyers Association in support of the respondent in the Supreme Court case United States v. Alvarez. The brief argues that the government's position urging limits on First Amendment protections is alarming and inconsistent with decades of precedent. It asserts that the Court should reject defining new categories of unprotected speech and should apply the traditional categorical approach to determining protection, maintaining a strong presumption of protection for all expression. The brief aims to caution the Court against eroding established First Amendment principles in this case.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether law enforcement's acquisition of seven months of cell site location information from a suspect's cell phone provider without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Circuit initially ruled that it did violate the Fourth Amendment, but then reversed en banc. The petitioner argues that the Supreme Court should reconsider precedents on reasonable expectations of privacy and the third-party doctrine in light of new technologies that can track location over long periods of time without user knowledge. The petitioner also argues the good faith exception should not apply given ambiguities in the Stored Communications Act.
Scott McMillan, Michelle Volk , of McMillan_Law_Firm_La_Mesa sued for fraud, legal malpractice and sounds to me like elder abuse by forcing a lady to work for free. Read the pending federal lawsuit for details brought by a top national law firm in San Diego. The San Diego federal court case is now pending.
Federal court order from Nevada, Fourth Amendment issues, detailing illegal detention. Darren Chaker, writes frequently on such issues and was provided the order to help educate people on rights and judicial cases impacting every day life.
San_Diego_ACLU brief filed in civil rights case in federal court, Darren Chaker provides this to the public to better understand the value and aptitude the ACLU brings to cases when it deals with civil rights matters,
Impact litigation at its finest. Darren Chaker made law in Texas with top First Amendment law firm Graves Dougherty Hearon & Moody - sure they cost a lot,but the case made law and now allows any person to access the full roster of peace officer and personnel employed by any municipal or state agency. Former Constable Ron Hickman, opposed Darren Chaker based on frivolous arguments disclosing the names of his employees would risk lives. Incredibly, every day peace officers go to court and state there name in open court, sign there name on affidavits for search and arrest warrants, and names appear in police reports. The arguments failed and the case has been used over 136 times by the media, individuals, and attorneys,
Privacy Law Update Darren Chaker provides from a true leading law firm discusses privacy law , court cases, appellate opinions in federal and state court, as well as other privacy issues employers need to know in California.
Darren Chaker, opinion by federal court on privacy issues, and in federal case. Important issues in privacy and internet are addressed in lawsuit, very useful cases discussed.
Darren_Chaker provides Motion for Judicial Notice, filed in California Supreme Court, in pending merits petition concerning the court taking notice of Secretary of State records in the appeal.
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
Sangyun Lee, 'Why Korea's Merger Control Occasionally Fails: A Public Choice ...Sangyun Lee
Presentation slides for a session held on June 4, 2024, at Kyoto University. This presentation is based on the presenter’s recent paper, coauthored with Hwang Lee, Professor, Korea University, with the same title, published in the Journal of Business Administration & Law, Volume 34, No. 2 (April 2024). The paper, written in Korean, is available at <https://shorturl.at/GCWcI>.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
1. 1156 15th St. NW, Suite 1250
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 795-9300
www.rcfp.org
Bruce D. Brown
Executive Director
bbrown@rcfp.org (202) 795-9301
STEERING COMMITTEE
STEPHEN J. ADLER
Reuters
SCOTT APPLEWHITE
The Associated Press
WOLF BLITZER
CNN
DAVID BOARDMAN
Temple University
CHIP BOK
Creators Syndicate
JAN CRAWFORD
CBS News
MICHAEL DUFFY
Time
RICHARD S. DUNHAM
Tsinghua University, Beijing
ASHLEA EBELING
Forbes Magazine
SUSAN GOLDBERG
National Geographic
FRED GRAHAM
Founding Member
JOHN C. HENRY
Freelance
NAT HENTOFF
United Media Newspaper Syndicate
JEFF LEEN
The Washington Post
DAHLIA LITHWICK
Slate
TONY MAURO
National Law Journal
JANE MAYER
The New Yorker
DAVID McCUMBER
Hearst Newspapers
JOHN McKINNON
The Wall Street Journal
DOYLE MCMANUS
Los Angeles Times
ANDREA MITCHELL
NBC News
MAGGIE MULVIHILL
Boston University
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
NPR
BILL NICHOLS
Politico
JEFFREY ROSEN
The National Constitution Center
CAROL ROSENBERG
The Miami Herald
THOMAS C. RUBIN
Seattle, Wash.
ERIC SCHMITT
The New York Times
ALICIA SHEPARD
Freelance
MARGARET LOW SMITH
The Atlantic
JENNIFER SONDAG
Bloomberg News
PAUL STEIGER
Pro Publica
PIERRE THOMAS
ABC News
SAUNDRA TORRY
USA Today
JUDY WOODRUFF
PBS/The NewsHour
Affiliations appear only
for purposes of identification.
March 26, 2015
Acting Presiding Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson
and Associate Justices
Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District, Division One
300 S. Spring Street
2nd Floor, North Tower
Los Angeles CA 90013
Re: Pasadena Police Officers Ass’n v. L.A. Cnty. Superior Court,
Case No. B 260332
Application for Leave to File Amicus Letter Brief and Amicus Letter
Brief in Support of Intervenor Los Angeles Times Corporation LLC’s
Emergency Relief Request
To the Honorable Presiding Justice and Associate Justices:
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (the “Reporters
Committee”); the Associated Press; the California Newspaper Publishers
Association; Californians Aware; Dow Jones & Company, Inc.; the First
Amendment Coalition; Hearst Corporation; The New York Times Company;
the Pasadena Star-News, a publication of the Los Angeles News Group; The
Sacramento Bee; and The Washington Post (collectively, “amici”) seek leave
to file this letter brief in support of the Los Angeles Times Corporation LLC
(“L.A. Times”) and the Cross-Petitioners’ emergency relief request, to
address the serious First Amendment implications of the Court’s sealing and
prior restraint order, dated March 25, 2015.
The order, which sealed the Petitioners’ reply brief—filed nine days
prior on the public docket—and directed the L.A. Times to return the
unredacted brief to the Clerk of Court, amounts to an unconstitutional prior
restraint because it dictates what information the L.A. Times may possess in
the course of its reporting. Amici respectfully urge the Court to vacate the
March 25 order.
No party or counsel for any party, other than counsel for amici, has
authored this letter in whole or in part or funded the preparation of this letter
brief.
Interests of Amici
The Reporters Committee is an association of reporters and editors
dedicated to defending and preserving the First Amendment’s guarantee of a
free press. The Reporters Committee has provided representation, guidance,
2. and research in First Amendment litigation since 1970. As a representative of the news
media and an advocate for press freedom, the Reporters Committee brings a broad,
national perspective to this issue and has a strong interest in challenging prior restraints
on publication.
The Associated Press (“AP”) is a news cooperative organized under the Not-for-
Profit Corporation Law of New York, and owned by its 1,500 U.S. newspaper members.
The AP’s members and subscribers include the nation’s newspapers, magazines,
broadcasters, cable news services and Internet content providers. The AP operates from
300 locations in more than 100 countries. On any given day, AP’s content can reach
more than half of the world’s population.
The California Newspaper Publishers Association (“CNPA”) is a nonprofit trade
association representing the interests of nearly 850 daily, weekly and student newspapers
throughout California. For over 130 years, CNPA has worked to protect and enhance the
freedom of speech guaranteed to all citizens and to the press by the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the California Constitution.
CNPA has dedicated its efforts to protect the free flow of information concerning
government institutions in order for newspapers to fulfill their constitutional role in our
democratic society and to advance the interest of all Californians in the transparency of
government operations.
Californians Aware is a nonpartisan nonprofit corporation organized under the
laws of California and eligible for tax exempt contributions as a 501(c)(3) charity
pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. Its mission is to foster the improvement of,
compliance with and public understanding and use of, the California Public Records Act
and other guarantees of the public’s rights to find out what citizens need to know to be
truly self-governing, and to share what they know and believe without fear or loss.
Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a global provider of news and business information,
is the publisher of The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, MarketWatch, Dow Jones
Newswires, and other publications. Dow Jones maintains one of the world’s largest
newsgathering operations, with more than 1,800 journalists in nearly fifty countries
publishing news in several different languages. Dow Jones also provides information
services, including Dow Jones Factiva, Dow Jones Risk & Compliance, and Dow Jones
VentureSource. Dow Jones is a News Corporation company.
First Amendment Coalition is a nonprofit public interest organization dedicated to
defending free speech, free press and open government rights in order to make
government, at all levels, more accountable to the people. The Coalition’s mission
assumes that government transparency and an informed electorate are essential to a self-
governing democracy. To that end, the Coalition resists excessive government secrecy
(while recognizing the need to protect legitimate state secrets) and censorship of all
kinds.
2
3. Hearst Corporation is one of the nation’s largest diversified media companies. Its
major interests include the following: ownership of 15 daily and 38 weekly newspapers,
including the San Francisco Chronicle; nearly 300 magazines around the world; 29
television stations, including two in Monterey and Sacramento, Calif.; ownership in
leading cable networks, including Lifetime, A&E and ESPN; business publishing,
including a joint venture interest in Fitch Ratings; and Internet businesses, television
production, newspaper features distribution and real estate.
The New York Times Company is the publisher of The New York Times and The
International Times, and operates the news website nytimes.com.
The Pasadena Star-News is a daily newspaper of general circulation published by
the Los Angeles News Group.
The Sacramento Bee is a division of McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of The McClatchy Company. The flagship newspaper of The
McClatchy Company and the largest paper in the region, The Sacramento Bee was
awarded its first Pulitzer Prize in 1935 for Public Service. Since that time, The Bee has
won numerous awards, including four more Pulitzer Prizes, the most recent for feature
photography in 2007.
WP Company LLC (d/b/a The Washington Post) publishes one of the nation’s
most prominent daily newspapers, as well as a website, www.washingtonpost.com, that is
read by an average of more than 20 million unique visitors per month.
Amici strongly object to the March 25 order, as it amounts to an unconstitutional
prior restraint. Because prior restraints affect the news media everywhere, the
undersigned respectfully seeks permission to appear as amici in support of the L.A.
Times and the Cross-Petitioners to emphasize why prior restraints are intolerable.
Discussion
An order to seal an already viewed document and return copies of that document
to the court, with the implicit understanding that the party cannot retain or publicize that
information, functions as a prior restraint on speech.
There is no greater threat to free expression than government censorship. See
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 553 (1975) (“Our distaste for
censorship — reflecting the natural distaste of a free people — is deep-written in our
law”). The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that “prior restraints on speech and
publication are the most serious and least tolerable infringement on first amendment
rights.” Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). A prior restraint is
particularly injurious to a free press because the order is an absolute, “immediate and
irreversible sanction.” Id. If post-publication liability can be said to chill speech, a prior
restraint “‘freezes’ it.” Id. at 559. Accordingly, prior restraints are “disfavored in this
3
4. nation nearly to the point of extinction.” United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 907, 915 (5th
Cir. 2001).
The “chief purpose” of the First Amendment is to prevent “previous restraint
upon publication” by the government. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 713 (1931). As
Justice White explained in his concurring opinion in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v.
Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 259 (1974), “[r]egardless of how beneficent-sounding the
purposes of controlling the press might be, we . . . remain intensely skeptical about those
measures that would allow government to insinuate itself into the editorial rooms of this
Nation’s press.”
Courts must not condone a prior restraint, no matter how innocuous or well-
intended a particular order may seem, because a system of prior restraint encourages the
government to scrutinize and suppress ever more speech than a system based on post-
publication remedies. The dynamics of a prior restraint “system drive toward excesses, as
the history of all censorship shows.” Nebraska Press Association, 427 U.S. at 589
(Brennan, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 594–95
(“there are compelling reasons for not carving out a new exception to the rule against
prior censorship of publication”).
The First Amendment protects the media’s right to publish information of public
concern that the media obtains legally—even if the trial court or the government
generally has the power to restrict dissemination of information at issue in the first
instance. See Oklahoma Publishing, 430 U.S. at 311–12 (reversing a prior restraint
prohibiting the press from publishing the name of a juvenile defendant, which the
journalist had learned by attending a court proceeding, even though courts generally may
generally protect the identity of juveniles); N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713,
714 (1971) (holding that a newspaper cannot be restrained from publishing classified
documents and that had been obtained by the newspaper’s source without authorization);
see also Landmark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829, 849 (1978) (Stewart, J.,
concurring) (“Though government may deny access to information and punish its theft,
government may not prohibit or punish the publication of that information once it falls
into the hands of the press, unless the need for secrecy is manifestly overwhelming.”)
(emphasis added).
Courts have held that even when material is properly filed under seal and obtained
lawfully by the press, prior restraints on publication are unconstitutional. See Procter &
Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219, 227 (6th Cir. 1996) (vacating a prior
restraint on publishing the contents of a document filed with the court under seal, which
had been provided to the media inadvertently).
Permitting the March 25 order to stand would set a dangerous precedent of
restricting publication of lawfully obtained information, in contravention of U.S.
Supreme Court precedent. The order removes information of public concern from the
hands of the media, preventing the press everywhere from reporting on issues of intense
4
5. public interest. For these reasons, amici respectfully urge the Court to vacate the March
25 order.
Very truly yours,
Bruce D. Brown
Gregg P. Leslie
Katie Townsend
Tom Isler
THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
Additional Counsel:
Karen Kaiser
General Counsel
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
New York, NY
Jim Ewert
General Counsel
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION
Sacramento, CA
Terry Francke
General Counsel
CALIFORNIANS AWARE
Sacramento, CA
Mark H. Jackson
Jason P. Conti
Craig Linder
DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC.
New York, NY
Peter Scheer
FIRST AMENDMENT COALITION
San Rafael, CA
Jonathan Donnellan
Kristina Findikyan
HEARST CORPORATION
New York, NY
David McCraw
V.P./Asst. General Counsel
THE NEW YORK TIMES CO.
New York, NY
Juan Cornejo
Asst. General Counsel
THE MCCLATCHY COMPANY
Sacramento, CA
James A. McLaughlin
THE WASHINGTON POST
Washington, D.C.
5