Can You File a Personal Injury Lawsuit Against a Stalker?

Originally published by robertslawfirm.

In the Internet age, stalking has become an increased concern. Because of the Internet and social media, stalking is no longer limited to physically following someone or making harassing phone calls. Stalking can lead to a serious disruption of the victim’s life, and cause the victim to suffer severe emotional distress. Accordingly, recent laws have provided more protection against stalkers. Until recently, stalking was addressed as a form of harassment or nuisance. Some states — including Texas — have enacted anti-stalking statutes that specifically address the issue of stalking, and have created a specific cause of action for stalking. Under these anti-stalker statutes, stalking is harassment, and includes contacting, following, annoying and/or threatening someone. A victim must reasonably be in fear of his or her safety, or of that of an immediate family member, or even the safety of someone who lives with the victim. The victim must also establish that the defendant engaged in a pattern of conduct that would amount to stalking. One telephone call or personal appearance at work will usually not suffice. The defendant must also have threatened the victim in such a way that the victim genuinely was in fear. Furthermore, the threats must be aimed at a specific person and not be general in nature. In drafting anti-stalking laws, state legislatures have recognized that technology has increasingly made contact easier. Current anti-stalking laws encompass many devices used for stalking, including cell phones and computers. Of course, the threats or harassment made by a stalker must […]

The post Can You File a Personal Injury Lawsuit Against a Stalker? appeared first on Roberts & Roberts.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mZYa1J
via Abogado Aly Website

Why I would not put Kodi on an Amazon Fire TV Stick (or any Streaming Device).

Originally published by Robert Z. Cashman.

Using Kodi on an Amazon Fire Stick might not get you sued for copyright infringement, but it puts you at risk by exposing your IP address and your activities.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mtZzSL
via Abogado Aly Website

Who is Liable for Sports Injuries?

Originally published by robertslawfirm.

In full contact sports such as football or hockey, injuries are essentially unavoidable. Although lawsuits having to do with sports injuries are rare and rarely succeed, in certain circumstances liability is imposed. For example, if a player violates the rules of a game and purposely injures another player, the injured player may be able to charge the other player with battery. Consequently, the player who violated the rules may be liable for the other player’s damages. Another legal theory applied to sports injuries is negligence. Examples of negligence include: Unsafe facilities Unsafe equipment Lack of a competent coach (negligent supervising or training) Forcing an injured player to play Moving an injured player unsafely Allowing mismatched players to play Noncompliance with workers compensation laws Failing to certify a player’s physical condition Manufacturing unsafe equipment The party charged with negligence, such as a coach or other players, typically will use what is known as the “assumption of risk” defense. This defense claims that the player was aware of the risk of danger that is associated with the sport, and therefore cannot hold anyone else responsible for injuries sustained while playing the sport. An injured player must file the claim within a specific period of time, which varies from state to state. If the party being charged with negligence is an agent or agency of the government, the player charging negligence must also file a notice of claim with a particular government agency within a specific period of time. Again, this amount of time […]

The post Who is Liable for Sports Injuries? appeared first on Roberts & Roberts.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mwr0v4
via Abogado Aly Website

Texas Jury Reform Would Limit Prosecutors in Grand Jury Proceedings

Originally published by AZ.

Grand jury proceedings were originally designed to provide checks and balances against oppressive prosecution or potential witch hunts.

If passed, a proposal that’s currently before Texas lawmakers would make it mandatory for prosecutors to share evidence that could help a suspect’s case with grand juries. According to a Texas Tribune report, two versions of the same proposed law have been filed by both Democratic and Republican state lawmakers, meaning the bill has bipartisan support.

What Is a Grand Jury?

A grand jury differs from what people think of when they hear the term “jury trial.” When a grand jury is assembled, its function is only to determine if there is probable cause to believe an individual has committed a crime. If the grand jury finds there is probable cause it issues a formal charge, the indictment. Because a grand jury does not make an ultimate determination of guilt, the rules governing the process are much different than those in criminal prosecutions after the grand jury has returned an indictment.

Grand jury proceedings are not open to the public. This prevents people merely suspected of crimes from being publicly embarrassed by a disclosure that they are under investigation, and it aids law enforcement by not alerting suspects that they are under investigation.

Proposed Rule Change for Grand Jury Proceedings

According to one of the bill’s sponsors, grand jury proceedings were originally designed to provide “checks and balances against oppressive prosecution or potential witch hunts.” He claims that current rules and policies give prosecutors an “unfair advantage over the accused,” even in cases where the accused is innocent of any wrongdoing.

The bill would reform grand jury proceedings by requiring prosecutors to provide the grand jury not only with evidence that tends to establish the guilt of a suspect, but evidence that also tends to establish a suspect’s innocence.

Additionally, the proposed law would permit a suspect’s lawyer to be present during questioning and would stop prosecutors from going to a second grand jury if the first grand jury fails to indict.

The second proposed provision is designed to prevent instances of “double jeopardy,” according to a senior policy analyst with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He stated that if a case has already been investigated and a grand jury said there’s not enough evidence to indict, the prosecutor shouldn’t have an opportunity to shop around for a grand jury willing to do so, as that sort of behavior goes against the principle that an individual can’t be prosecuted twice for the same alleged criminal offense.

Bill Would Also Allow Suspects to Receive Evidence

Another part of the proposed law would permit suspects to receive evidence from the case upon request, however, they would not have access to any identifying information about witnesses or alleged victims. This section of the bill would give suspects the ability to begin building their defense prior to setting foot in a courtroom — an option they don’t have under current Texas grand jury rules.

Sources:

1. http://ift.tt/2mHIPUS
2. http://ift.tt/22yO0G0

Mick Mickelsen Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer

Founding Partner/Former Assistant Federal Public Defender

Contact Info

Broden & Mickelsen, LLP

2600 State St Dallas,

Texas 75204

(214) 720-9552

The post Texas Jury Reform Would Limit Prosecutors in Grand Jury Proceedings appeared first on Dallas Criminal Defense Attorneys |State & Federal Lawyers.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2nGWr5L
via Abogado Aly Website

Workshops held for Rio Grande Valley inventors, entrepreneurs

Originally published by Eric Quitugua.

Inventors and entrepreneurs will learn from attorneys about pertinent patent and trademark topics at free intellectual property workshops in the Rio Grande Valley.

The full-day workshops, one in Brownsville on March 23 and one in McAllen on March 24, are geared toward underserved inventors and entrepreneurs who may just be getting ideas off the ground and starting up businesses. Volunteer lawyers and examiners will be available for one-on-one private consultations about those ideas.

The Brownsville session will be hosted at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley Entrepreneurship and Commercialization Center, 1601 Price Rd., Ste. E.

The McAllen session will be at the UTRGV Small Business Development Center, 1800 S. Main St., Ste. 1100.

The workshops are hosted by the two UTRGV centers, the State Bar of Texas Intellectual Property Law Section, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

To view the full agendas for the sessions and to register to attend, go to the Eventbrite pages for Brownsville and McAllen.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2mt6Zpc
via Abogado Aly Website

SXSW law-related panels roundup

Originally published by Jillian Beck and Amy Starnes.

Attorneys had the opportunity to learn about new trends and topics in the law at many sessions at South by Southwest March 10-19. Here we provide a recap of some of the panels.

Read some of our past coverage about others involving crowdsourcing for access to justice, privacy and the Fourth Amendment in an evolving digital age, copyright infringement and music policy, and the possibility of law on Mars.

Legal challenges to ‘fairness bots’

University of Michigan Professor Christian Sandvig opened the panel “We Sued for Your Bots” on March 14 with a thought-provoking question: If you were being treated unfairly by an online platform, how could you tell?

Sandvig and other researchers, activists, and journalists aim to answer the query by using so-called “fairness bots” to test online platforms and websites—such as those involving housing, credit, and employment—for any possible discrimination against certain types of users.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Sandvig and many other researchers in a lawsuit with the federal government targeting a narrow part of the Computer Abuse and Fraud Act, attorneys on the panel said, that allows for the government to prosecute researchers or journalists for violating the terms of service of websites or online platforms.

The government is largely not pursuing such cases, ACLU attorney Esha Bhandari said, but they believe the law should be limited to preclude the possibility.

Sandvig, Bhandari, and ACLU attorney Rachel Goodman discussed the importance of technology companies addressing possible unintentional discrimination in software in the beginning of the development stages.

“It is likely that certain types of discrimination issues are going to crop up and it’s worth it to think about it early in the process,” Goodman said.

Trade secret protection

Anyone can have an idea about a product or a service, but it’s the execution of that idea that constitutes a trade secret that may be in need of protection, said experts on the March 16 South by Southwest panel “Trade Secret Protection and Cybersecurity Risks.”

Panelist Adam Gislason, an attorney with Fox Rothschild, told attendees that trade secrets are difficult to establish under the law. While it may seem a bit simple, a key to protecting a trade secret is that it has to be a secret. If a business owner doesn’t take steps to protect the “secret sauce,” it’s hard to prove later that it was actually a key component of the business and proprietary information, he said.

Ryan Tabloff, managing partner of Avantgarde Partners, said don’t toss around non-disclosure agreements loosely, however, innovators need to make sure they have appropriate agreements and contracts in place covering their employees.

“You have to assume they (employees) are going to go work for the competition tomorrow,” Tabloff said.

Building brands in film and television

The growth of reality television and new technology have introduced new opportunities for celebrities, influencers, and advertisers to build their brands, Los Angeles-based entertainment attorney Jody Simon said at the March 16 South by Southwest panel “Building Brands in Film & Television is the New Normal.”

Toward the end of the 19th century with the increase in massed produced consumer goods, advertisers started to partner with celebrities to create brand identities and associations through product endorsements, said Simon, a partner in Fox Rothschild.

Disney was an early leader in branding, Simon said, building off of its films with merchandising, live shows, theme park attractions, and remakes.

Reality TV and new technology, such as DVRs, have increased opportunities for product integration—like the Coca Cola products prevalent in American Idol, Simon said.

Celebrities and online personalities have capitalized on the proliferation of social media to enhance their brands and build large followings, he said.

“The critical thing for social media personalities in particular is their brand—and they have to be true to (it),” Simon said.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2n44WoS
via Abogado Aly Website

Willful Blindness or Deliberate Ignorance – Either One Can Get You in Trouble

Originally published by Walter James.

It does not matter if you purposefully decided not to look at the results of an audit, you could still be found culpable.  Let us suppose you have engaged a firm to conduct an audit of your operations.  You get the audit report and stick it in a drawer and do nothing to review the results or correct any deficiencies or problems.  Are you still liable?  More than likely, yes.

In United States v. Uzoaga, No. 16-20211 (5^th Cir. 2017), the Fifth Circuit affirmed the use of a “deliberate ignorance” instructions in those situations where the evidence shows that the defendant was aware of a high probability of criminal conduct  and still maintains that he/she had no knowledge of the conduct.  In Uzoaga, it was a doctor that did nothing to change billing practices, even after a Medicare audit indicated Medicare fraud.  The opinion states that: “Uzoaga reviewed the Medicare remittance notices yet refrained from ever inquiring with the treatment provider about the billing or coding used. Under the circumstances here, Dr. Uzoaga had good reason to be suspicious that illegal conduct was occurring in her patients’ treatment. After Dr. Uzoaga’s submission of documents to the audit response, Medicare denied some of the claims submitted. Regardless of the precise basis given by Medicare, the post-audit denial gives rise to a reasonable inference that Dr. Uzoaga was aware of a high probability of illegal conduct.”  The Fifth Circuit found that this should have put the doctor on notice of the high probability of illegal conduct.

Uzoaga was a Medicare fraud case.  How does that apply to the environmental world?  Well, if you do an audit and do nothing to correct deficiencies, the government has an argument that you are culpable by deliberately ignoring the results of the audit and what steps were necessary to correct the deficiencies.  It could certainly get a jury instruction that remaining deliberately ignorant when circumstances showed a high probability of illegal conduct may be circumstantial proof of the requisite guilty knowledge.  That would be deemed to be the same as a “knowing” violation of the environmental laws.

So, when it comes to audits, make sure there is not only a commitment to conducting the audit, but a commitment to correcting the deficiencies that are identified in the audit report.

And a shout out to my friend Jim Smith for bringing this case to my attention!

More later.

As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com

WDJiii

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/2n8pAUT
via Abogado Aly Website