Articles Posted in June, 2012


Today U.S. Magistrate Judge Leslie Foschio warned that the court is “more than suspicio[us] that” plaintiff Paul Ceglia” filed no less than five (5) motions against Facebook and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, in his lawsuit claiming a fifty-percent (50%) ownership of the company, “solely to unreasonably and vexatiously multiply the proceedings.”

Judge Foschio ordered Ceglia to explain within ten days why he should not be sanctioned yet again in the “contentious” litigation.

This could be the second time that Ceglia would be sanctioned in the case.

The case involves Ceglia’s purported claims to having a 2003 contract with Zuckerberg giving him ownership of one-half of Facebook. The Silicon Valley-based social media giant and CEO Mark Zuckerberg contend that the alleged contract Ceglia claims to have is a forgery, and that the case should be dismissed.

Read the new 43-page order here:


Tomorrow brings one of the most highly anticipated decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years: the ruling on the constitutionality of the health-care law that is arguably the crowning achievement of President Obama’s first term in office. Incidentally, tomorrow also marks the one-year anniversary of the launch of Verdict, Justia’s legal analysis and commentary site.

Posted in: Justia News, Legal News


Last week, Representative Benjamin Quayle (R-AZ) introduced the Prohibiting Back-door Amnesty Act. The Act seeks to nullify President Obama’s recent immigration policy change by rescinding various memoranda and directives that call for the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in not pursuing undocumented children.

A separate bill introduced by Representative Michael C. Burgess (R-TX) seeks to prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from granting work authorizations to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Posted in: Laws, Legal News


Several privacy lawsuits against Google, Inc. have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following a ruling by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). In In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, the JPML found that “eight actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.” In a footnote, the JPML also acknowledged the presence of twelve other related actions that may also be consolidated for adjudication. In total, there are at the time of writing 16 cases consolidated in this action.


Lane V. Erickson/

In Eastman Kodak Company v. Apple Inc. et al, filed in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, Apple has asked the court to withdraw the adversarial proceeding that Kodak initiated in bankruptcy court. Apple argues in its brief that Kodak’s bankruptcy proceeding would affect Apple’s interests in certain contested patents and that the bankruptcy court is an inappropriate forum to resolve such complex non-bankruptcy issues.

Posted in: Apple, Patent


InNova Patent Licensing, LLC has filed a lawsuit against Facebook in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the patent (6,018,761) is a “system for adding to electronic mail messages information obtained from sources external to the electronic mail transport process.”

Tagged: facebook


Last week, President Obama announced a change in his administration’s immigration policy regarding undocumented children. With an appeal to fairness and financial considerations, President Obama directed the Department of Homeland Security to focus its efforts to deport those who pose a threat to public safety or national security instead of talented young people.

Candidates for Prosecutorial Discretion

From Secretary Napolitano’s memorandum, an individual eligible for prosecutorial discretion will have met the following qualifications:

  • Age. Came to the United States under the age of sixteen and is not above the age of thirty.
  • Residence. Has continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and is present in the United States on the date of this memorandum;
  • Education or National Service. Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general education development certificate, or is an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and
  • Criminal Background. Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national security or public safety.

Posted in: Legal News


“Juneteenth is recognized by Americans everywhere as…”

The answer.

Posted in: Legal News
Tagged: juneteenth


Some noteworthy cases this week, as reported by our Daily Summary Writers.

The 10th Circuit reversed a sentencing ruling for a defendant found to be practicing law without a license. In  US v. Kieffer, the Court found that “By all appearances, Defendant Howard Kieffer had a successful nationwide criminal law practice.” What he didn’t have was a license to go with that practice. He never attended law school, sat for a bar exam, or received a license to practice law. He was convicted of mail fraud, making false statements, wire fraud, and contempt of court. On appeal, the 10th Circuit remanded for resentencing, finding errors in the trial court’s sentencing calculations.

The 5th Circuit issued a ruling involving the First Amendment and journalistic access. In United States v. Aldawsari, a journalist appealed the district court’s gag order preventing a terrorism suspect and his legal team from speaking to the media. The journalist argued that the gag order violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. The 5th Circuit concluded that the gag order affected appellant’s right to gather news and therefore, he had standing to challenge it. However, on the merits, appellant had not shown that the gag order violated the First Amendment since the gag order was not overly broad on its face. Additionally, the gag order did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the denial of his motion to intervene did not limit his right to earn a living through news gathering in violation of his due process rights.

Posted in: Legal News