A woman from Cambodia who is dying scam you.

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

Cleverly disguised WebCam Spam from MySafeStreams.com

Larry the 419 scammer is sorry for invading your privacy.

Mr Larry Smith's rely to our questions.

A response from Fang Wengen, the lawyer of Mrs Yang Huiyan

Mrs Sulak is dying, but she will always stay alive, long enough for someone to reply. That's 419 scam law!

Rosa Daniel wants you to come to Rome to pick up a high priority package.

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.

An eBay phishing scammer trying to pique your curiosity.

Margaret Loughrey wants to give you some of her winnings... not really... 419 scammers are piggybacking on her story, which is already OLD news.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed a mootness ruling in a dispute between two neighbors over the proposed demolition of a Laguna Beach house and its replacement with a new three-story residence. The case involved the California Environmental Quality Act and Coastal Commission rules.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental group's challenge to the issuance of a revised permit for a landfill. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that the State of Missouri lacked legal standing to sue the federal government on behalf of its citizens to challenge a federal water supply project that will divert billions of gallons of Missouri River water. The issue involved so-called parens patriae standing. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived environmental organizations' lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Forest Service to ban hunters' use of lead ammunition, which is ingested by scavenger wildlife species and causes lead poisoning. Held that the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was justiciable. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a citizen group's claim that a city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove more than 250 trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed an order sustaining the city's demurrer, in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the bankruptcy proceeding of a distributor of bulk petroleum products, held that a consignor's unperfected security interest in fuel and monetary proceeds was subordinate to the trustee's interest. Affirmed the judgment below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which plaintiff challenged, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which forbids manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products, the district court's summary judgment to agency-defendant is reversed where plaintiff, a middleman involved in the advertising industry, had standing to challenge section 25503, because the Supreme Court's opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), requires heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful products, rather than the intermediate scrutiny previously applied to section 25503 by the Ninth Circuit in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir.1986).

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case involving personal guaranties to secure real estate development loans, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in favor of the lender is affirmed by an equally divided court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a consolidated criminal appeal, one defendant's sentence and both defendants' convictions of conspiring to defraud the U.S. and its agency, HUD, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 371, are affirmed over defendants' meritless claims of error regarding: 1) void for vagueness; 2) insufficient evidence; 3) jury pool contamination; 4) credibility bolstering; 5) prejudicial cross examination; 6) mens rea; 7) supplemental instruction; and 8) improper sentencing.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States First Circuit) - In a wrongful death action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, a provider of vacations for students, is reversed where the court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue of causation after allowing no discovery on the issue and receiving no briefing on the matter from the parties.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is affirmed by an en banc court where: 1) thirty years ago, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986), this Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the same California and Professions Code provision; and 2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) did not modify the Central Hudson test that been applied in Actmedia.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(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) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.