Legal News

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
13,267
Reaction score
2,769
Points
238
Something I came across thanks to another member. If you enjoy reading about legal issues, lawsuits, etc., this site has it.

 
Bump

The Government Can’t Evade Lawsuits by Strategically Mooting Cases​

Yonas Fikre, an American citizen, was placed on the No‐Fly List in 2010 while he was out of the country. Fikre alleges that this was an attempt to coerce him into becoming a government informant. Fikre attempted to appeal his placement on the list using DHS procedures, but these appeals were denied. Fikre was told only that he had been “identified as an individual who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security.” Fikre’s placement prevented him from returning to the United States until 2015, damaged his reputation, and destroyed his marriage.

When Fikre sued in federal court to enforce his rights, the government removed him from the list—initially without explanation—and then argued that the case was moot. The FBI has never conceded that its original decision to place Fikre on the No‐Fly List was wrong, nor has it explained what changed such that Fikre no longer deserves placement on the list.

More:

 

Legal Theory Lexicon: Interpretation and Construction​

Every law student learns that the relationship of a legal text to the resolution of a particular case can be complex. What does the text mean? How does that meaning translate into legal doctrine? And how does the doctrine apply in the context of the facts of the case? One way to think more clearly about this process is to distinguish between interpretation and construction. We can roughly define these two activities as follows:

  • Interpretation: The activity of discerning the linguistic meaning in context (or communicative content) of a legal text.
  • Construction: The activity of determining the legal effect (or legal content) of a legal text.
Those definitions sound pretty technical, but I hope you are starting to get the idea. We interpret the meaning of a text, and then we construct legal rules to help us apply the text to concrete fact situations.

More:

 

Capital Flows Into Litigation Funds With Social Justice Impact​

  • At least three funds launched with goals to advance social causes
  • ‘Incredible opportunity’ to generate impact and returns
Investors who seek returns by funding lawsuits are adding a new twist—they are seeking social change too.

James Burnham, a former Jones Day attorney who served in President Donald Trump’s Justice Department, in July launched Vallecito Capital, a $50 million fund that will back cases supporting the conservative policy mission. TRGP Capital, a Connecticut-based litigation financier, in January announced the launch of Flashlight Capital, a separate vehicle whose goal is to “catch the confluence” between litigation finance and ESG investing, said managing director Will Zerhouni.

And Aristata Capital, a firm launched last year and partially backed by Democratic donor George Soros, has made nine investments from a $67 million fund to hold corporations accountable for environmental and human rights abuses.

“Conservative, liberal, whatever it might be, you’re seeing more capital moving into this space,” said Rob Ryan, chief executive officer at Aristata. “You’re seeing a recognition from investors that this is a incredible opportunity to generate impact and some significant returns.”

More:

 

US federal judiciary adopts policy to curtail 'judge shopping'​

(Reuters) -The U.S. federal judiciary on Tuesday adopted a new policy aimed at curtailing "judge shopping" by state attorneys general, activists and companies who file lawsuits challenging government policies in courthouses where one or two sympathetic judges hear most cases.

The U.S. Judicial Conference, the judiciary's policymaking body, at a meeting in Washington, D.C., approved a policy that would require lawsuits seeking to block state or federal laws to be assigned a judge randomly throughout a federal district.

U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, newly appointed chair of the Judicial Conference's executive committee, said the change was prompted by the "plethora of national, statewide injunctions" being issued by judges in such cases.

Nationwide injunctions allow a single judge in one federal district to block implementation of new rules across the entire U.S.

The policy change followed calls by Democratic President Joe Biden's administration, Democratic lawmakers, and the American Bar Association for the judiciary to eliminate case assignment mechanisms that allow litigants to effectively choose which judges will hear their challenges to government policies.

More:

 
Bump

The Government Can’t Evade Lawsuits by Strategically Mooting Cases​

Yonas Fikre, an American citizen, was placed on the No‐Fly List in 2010 while he was out of the country. Fikre alleges that this was an attempt to coerce him into becoming a government informant. Fikre attempted to appeal his placement on the list using DHS procedures, but these appeals were denied. Fikre was told only that he had been “identified as an individual who may be a threat to civil aviation or national security.” Fikre’s placement prevented him from returning to the United States until 2015, damaged his reputation, and destroyed his marriage.

When Fikre sued in federal court to enforce his rights, the government removed him from the list—initially without explanation—and then argued that the case was moot. The FBI has never conceded that its original decision to place Fikre on the No‐Fly List was wrong, nor has it explained what changed such that Fikre no longer deserves placement on the list.

More:



Supreme Court unanimously rules against government in No Fly List case​


The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled a man’s challenge to his former placement on the No Fly List can move forward, finding the government failed to show his lawsuit is moot.

Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen who previously resided in Sudan, claimed his placement on the list was unlawful and sued the FBI.

The government later removed him from the list and signaled it was unlikely he would be readded. It then contended Fikre’s lawsuit was moot as a result and should be tossed.

The government warned that not declaring lawsuit like Fikre’s moot at the onset could require the government to disclose classified information. The Supreme Court rejected that assertion, enabling Fikre’s case to move ahead.

“Necessarily, our judgment is a provisional one,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s opinion.

More:

 

Federal Court Quotes Dr. Seuss in Scathing Opinion Dismissing Suit​


 

Blockbuster cases abound as Supreme Court enters opinion season​

WASHINGTON (CN) — Over the next two months, the Supreme Court is expected to release rulings in major cases covering elections, abortion, guns and government authority.

So far, the justices have only handed down opinions in 18 of the term's 62 cases. There’s no indication yet that the justices won’t follow tradition and wrap up the term by the end of June. That leaves just under two months to issue around 45 opinions; several pending cases have been consolidated and could be decided together.

While every Supreme Court case is consequential, the justices have handed down only one “big” ruling thus far: a unanimous decision to keep Donald Trump on presidential primary ballots in 2024.

So far, unanimity has been a trend. In the court's first decision of the term, all nine justices avoided ruling on disability lawsuits by dismissing a case involving hotel accommodations.

More:

 
 
 

Illinois legislators set to change ‘offender’ to ‘justice-impacted individual’​

(The Center Square) – Illinois legislators are working to change the term "offender" to "justice impacted individual" in state law, a move Republicans say disrespects victims of violent crime.

House Bill 4409 would add Illinois Department of Corrections representation to the Adult Redeploy Illinois oversight board, but it also changes the word "offender" to "justice-impacted individuals." Republicans on the Senate floor said the name change could cost taxpayers thousands of dollars.

More:

 
 
 
Back
Top Bottom