As most people know, there has been an on-going feud between Taylor Swift and Kayne West. Last night, more fuel was added to the fire when Kayne’s wife, Kim Kardashian, went to Snapchat and posted recordings of a conversation between Ms. Swift and Mr. West which purport to show that Taylor was aware of off-colored lyrics in one of Mr. West’s songs, and gave her blessing to include before the album released. To date, Taylor denies giving such approval. Taylor went to her Instagram account soon after, writing: “That moment when Kanye West secretly records your phone call.”
On July 5, 2016, the United States District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in the case entitled United States v. Nosal. The case involved a former employer and others using the password of another employee to hack into his former employer’s database in order to access and take information which belonged to his former employer.
The decision has gained a lot of attention and press because Mr. Nosal’s criminal conviction was based upon his use of another employee’s passwords. There are a large number of articles and blog posts warning that the holding in the case could result in the criminal prosecution of an individual who uses a friend’s Netflix or HBO GO password to access those sites. While that could be one result of the decision, I believe the holding in the Nosal case does not currently go that far. Per the Ninth Circuit, “this appeal is not about password sharing. Nor is it about violating a company’s internal computer use policies.” Rather, the case revolves around accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud as defined in the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
In many of my previous blogs I have discussed the procedure involved in contesting a Last Will and Testament. This blog shall focus on other side of the equation, the defense of a Will contest. Since there are many facets involved in the defense of a Will contest, we shall first focus on what the named Executor or Executrix must do upon being served with a Verified Complaint seeking to contest the validity of a Last Will and Testament. For the purposes of this blog, I will assume that the Executor had already taken the necessary steps to admit to probate the Last Will and Testament of the decedent.
Stark & Stark Shareholder Dolores R. Kelley, Esq., with contributions from Associate Marshall T. Kizner, Esq., authored a chapter in the book Moonshiner to Craft Distillery, Leading Lawyers on the Business of Distilling (Inside the Minds™), which was published by Thomson Reuters. The chapter they authored, entitled “Ensuring Distillery Compliance Requires an Interdisciplinary Approach,” explains the effect of the evolution of distillery laws on the craft distillery industry.
Several months ago, I blogged about the Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., 436 N.J. Super. 305 (Super. Ct. 2014)case. The case addressed an important issue – whether or not an employee’s could enter an agreement to shorten the statute of limitations period from 2 years to six months to assert an employment discrimination claim pursuant to New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Yesterday, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations period could not be reduced by agreement.
How long does a copyright owner have to bring suit for copyright infringement? The answer is three years from the date of the last infringement, regardless of when the very first infringement occurred. Copyright law follows the “separate-accrual rule,” which provides for a new three-year statute of limitations each time an infringement occurs. While the three-year look back period allows copyright owners to maintain actions years or decades after the initial infringement occurs (assuming subsequent infringements), the copyright holder would only be entitled to damages for that three-year period, rather than the entire period of time the infringing activity had occurred.
Joseph H. Lemkin, Esq. and the Stark & Stark team are honored to participate in the United Way of Greater Mercy County’s Strike Out Hunger event taking place June 21, 2016 at the Grounds for Sculpture in Hamilton. Volunteers will weigh, pack, seal and box servings of oatmeal to help hungry children in Mercer County.
This year the Strike Out Hunger fundraising goal is $37,500 to create packaged servings of oatmeal for distribution to food banks supporting New Jersey’s at risk children. Every $1000 raised provides 4,000 meals. Donations to the Stark & Stark fund can be made online here. If you would like to volunteer for the event or set up your online fundraising page, please contact the United Way of Greater Mercer County for more information.
Many people do not realize that Condominium Associations can foreclose units in the same manner as a mortgagee, pursuant to N.JS.A. 46:8B-21.
The Complaint to Foreclose is filed in the County where the unit is located. A copy of the filed Complaint is then served upon the unit owner via personal service. The unit owner will have 35 days to file an Answer to the Association’s Complaint. In the event the Unit Owner fails to file an Answer, the Association can proceed with filing a Request to Enter Default.
Two US Senators recently demanded that FINRA explain how it plans to minimize the high rate of brokers who are involved in criminal activity or have been the subject of customer complaints.
Clearly Senators Warren and Cotton are not familiar with how the FINRA U-4 and U-5 process works. In addition, they are probably not overly familiar with the history of federal securities laws. As a brief background, the federal securities laws have been built on and continue to operate on the theory that “sunlight is the greatest disinfectant.” The laws have been built and we continue to operate under a fair market where people are free to make their own informed decisions. Senators Warren and Cotton should look past this misleading data and understand some common realities.
The bad news:
The Courts are backlogged; Judges are overworked; decisions are delayed; and appeals can take years.
The good news:
You can opt out of the above by submitting your case to divorce arbitration; a forward-looking method of dispute resolution which has gained popularity in New Jersey and many other states.