We have a friend from Flipora, which we did not know we had... Oh sorry our mistake, iyaloo27@gmail.com is not our friend, he/she is a spammer and spammers are our enemy.

Your Verizon Wireless bill from the IRS. Wow, they must be serious about collecting the outstanding amount, because they called fridaysug85 to do the collection!

The shortest phishing scam e-mail ever!

This phishing scammer decided to skip the normal mumbo jumbo and just send the phishing link.

Another lame attempt at defrauding honest tax-paying South Africans. These phishing scammers could have at least used a better logo in their e-mail.

This is why it pays to have a mailbox called spam.

A Yahoo Notification from AOL? Are the phishing scammers getting confused?

An e-mail from Yahoo (or is that AOL?) to Yahoo about your mailbox exceeding its limits... What limits? Are you confused yet?

An extremely legitimate looking phishing scam aimed at NatWest credit card holders.

A general spammer that tries to throw in everything he can in one e-mail, from flags and banners and PVC printing to mosquito nets and aluminum fold-away wash lines. This spammer is an electronic convenience store!

Phishing scammers targeting Nedbank customers with malware.

Malware phishing scammers targeting ABSA customers with the ZBot Trojan.

A very lame attempt at defrauding Yahoo! users.

A fake Facebook message, taking you to some online pharmacy site.

A Liberty Life Debit Order Authorization from Microsoft, via Standard Bank. This is enough to make anyone confused. Clearly these phishing scammers did not think this one through.

Stock market spammers are at it again. This time promoting the R.C.H.A stock.

Stock market spammers still trying to push this stock.

A very convincing Paypal Phishing scam. No matter how hard they try, to the trained eye, it will always be obvious that this is a scam.

An eBay phishing scammer trying to pique your curiosity.

A fake Chase e-mail that has PHISHING written all over it.

IRMGF (Inspiration Mining Corporation) pump and dump stock spam

The most confusing Paypal phishing scam ever!

Phishing scammers using UCount awards as bait to steal your Standard Bank Internet Banking login details.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(Supreme Court of California) - Upheld a San Francisco ordinance that requires wireless phone service companies to obtain permits and conform with aesthetic guidelines when installing lines and equipment on utility poles. The companies sought a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is inconsistent with state law. However, the California Supreme Court was not persuaded by the companies' arguments.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion in a Freedom of Information Act case, held that the Sierra Club was entitled to certain records generated during the Environmental Protection Agency's rule-making process concerning cooling water intake structures. However, other records were protected from public release by the deliberative process privilege. Reversed in part and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to prevent the rebuilding of an equestrian facility following a fire by filing a petition to have the Coastal Commission to revoke the required coastal development permit on the grounds that the regulation used to make the decision was not interpreted correctly. The appeals court disagreed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied the federal government's petition for mandamus to stop a lawsuit alleging that the government is ignoring the dangers of climate change. This lawsuit was brought by a number of children and young adults who accuse federal officials of violating their due process rights by failing to take action to address climate change. Having previously denied the government's first mandamus petition, the panel concluded that no new circumstances justify this second mandamus petition and the case is currently set for trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to the construction of a natural gas pipeline across a religious organization's land. A Roman Catholic religious order brought suit to prevent the pipeline from being erected across its land, claiming that this would be contrary to its deeply held religious beliefs regarding its obligations in caring for the Earth as God's creation. However, the Third Circuit held that RFRA cannot be used to circumvent the prescribed review procedure for challenging pipeline projects, under which an objecting party must first seek rehearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which the religious order had not done.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an energy company could not proceed with its claim that Illinois environmental regulators lacked jurisdiction over its handling of hazardous‐waste acid that it transported into the state. Affirmed a dismissal based on claim and issue preclusion, among other doctrines.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a worker on an offshore oil platform could not proceed with his California law claim that he was denied overtime pay. The claim was preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Affirmed the dismissal, in relevant part, of his proposed class action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that individuals who worked for an oil drilling firm were properly classified as independent contractors, not employees. Reversed a summary judgment that had been granted in their favor on their Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification claim, and rendered judgment for the drilling firm.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a case challenging California's "Shark Fin Law," which makes it "unlawful for any person to possess, sell, offer of sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin" in the state, the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's amended complaint is affirmed where the claim that the Shark Find Law is preempted by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and management Act is without merit, as plaintiffs failed to identify any actual conflict between federal authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to manage shark fishing in the ocean off the California coast and the California Shark Fin Law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision affirming the refusal to register the mark LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS BRING THE TASTE OF LOUISIANA HOME! without a disclaimer of FISH FRY PRODUCTS, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports its finding that FISH FRY PRODUCTS has acquired distinctiveness.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action stemming from the plaintiffs' purchase of a piece of land and the opposition the defendants mounted to the plaintiffs' plan to develop that property, alleging defendants' conduct violated various constitutional and state law provisos, including 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 12, section 11, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs did not give sufficient facts to state plausible-on-their-face claims, ones that gave rise to more than a mere possibility of liability.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In putative class actions brought against ConAgra Foods in eleven states by consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled '100% Natural' during the relevant period, the district court's class certification is affirmed where the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure neither provides nor implies that demonstrating an administratively feasible way to identify class members is a prerequisite to class certification.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), brought by growers who sold their perishable agricultural products on credit to a distributor, thereby making the distributor a trustee over a PACA trust holding the perishable products and any resulting proceeds for the growers as PACA-trust beneficiaries, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where pursuant to Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 128 (9th Cir.2001), a commercially reasonable factoring agreement removes accounts receivable from the PACA trust without a trustee's breach of trust, thus defeating the growers' claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of a class-action suit alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is affirmed because subsequent legislation clarified that receipts with credit card expiration dates do not raise a material risk of identity theft and no specific harm was alleged.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded. A final rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration intended to make it easier for community credit unions to expand their coverage that was opposed by bankers was largely affirmed, but remanded to consider a portion that might impact poor and minority urban residents.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant failed to pay them for their work growing marijuana as agreed under a contract. Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading. The trial court ordered Plaintiff to take the Defendant’s default by a specified date. The default was taken. Defendant then sought to set-aside the default. The trial court denied relief. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion finding that the Defendant’s failure to respond to the complaint was knowing and deliberate.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.