Cliff is offering you the job of shipping manager assistant. The problem is, there is no job, so there is no salary, only a scammer waiting to take your money. This is the worst type of scammer, taking money from unemployed people.

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.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

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.

Malware delivered through fake UPS tracking page, attached as an HTML file.

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

So you are no longer winning lotteries, you are getting donations from generous lottery winners.

IRMGF (Inspiration Mining Corporation) pump and dump stock spam

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

(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) - 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.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment to the defendant schoolbook publisher against a stock photography agency complaining of copyright infringement because they were nonexclusive licensing agents for the photos at issue and failed to demonstrate adequate ownership interest to confer standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought by a photographer against Nike who commissioned its own photograph, similar to the photographer's, for use in the creation of the Jumpman logo because although the photo could sustain copyright the pose in the picture could not and the logo was not substantially similar to the photo.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a business owner contributorily infringed copyrighted photographs by displaying them on his website. However, remanded for further proceedings on whether the infringement was willful.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated actions taken by two federal agencies that provided necessary approvals for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. When the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service granted certain environmental authorizations that were needed to construct the 600-mile pipeline, which is designed to transport natural gas from West Virginia to the eastern portions of Virginia and North Carolina, environmental groups filed a petition for review of the agencies' actions. Agreeing with the environmental groups that both agency decisions were arbitrary and capricious, the Fourth Circuit vacated both administrative rulings.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the sentence of a defendant who pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bunker (marine fuel) supplier was not entitled to maritime liens against two chartered vessels to which it had physically provided marine fuel for which it was not paid. Affirmed the district court, in a case raising the question whether subcontractors were entitled to maritime liens.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an industry challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. A number of industry trade groups argued that the California regulations designed to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions violate the Commerce Clause or other parts of the federal constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a jury's finding that an investor was defrauded by an oil exploration company, which used his investment only to pay off preexisting debts. Affirmed the judgment, in relevant part.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that businesses may not recover compensation for purely economic losses suffered from mere proximity to an industrial accident (a massive, months-long leak from a natural gas storage facility). Negligence law did not provide them a remedy for income lost because of the leak, in this case where they alleged no property damage or personal injury.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a grape rootstock seller's challenge to the mandatory assessments it must pay to the California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission to help fund research for pest-resistant and drought-resistant rootstock, Food & Agr. Code sections 74701-74796, alleging it is an unconstitutional exercise of the state's police power in violation of plaintiff's liberty interests and due process rights under the federal and state Constitutions, the trial court's judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the Commission Law has a reasonable relation to a legitimate purpose and its delegation to nursery owners does not invalide the law.

(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 Supreme Court) - In a suit brought by a village, established pursuant to an 1882 Act that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to survey, appraise, and sell roughly 50,000 acres of Omaha Indian Reservation land lying west of a railroad right-of-way, seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from asserting its jurisdiction over the disputed land and imposing an amended Beverage Control Ordinance on village retailers, the Eighth Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in favor of Tribe is affirmed where the 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a putative employment class action brought by meat processors, alleging that the donning and doffing of safety gear were integral and indispensable to their hazardous work and that employer's policy not to pay for those activities denied them overtime compensation required by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and violated Iowa wage law, the Eight Circuit's affirmation of the District Court's judgment in worker's favor is affirmed where District Court did not err in certifying and maintaining the class because common questions, such as whether donning and doffing protective gear was compensable under the FLSA, were susceptible to classwide resolution even if not all of the workers wore the same gear.

(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 First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).