Malware phishing scammers targeting ABSA customers with the ZBot Trojan.

A very lame attempt at defrauding Yahoo! users.

Super-Loan.co.za are super spammers and when you go to their website you will find that it is super useless, i.e. it only shows the Microsoft IIS7 status page. Super professional.

Cleverly disguised WebCam Spam from MySafeStreams.com

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

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

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, reversed a judgment after a jury trial, in part. A photography studio claimed that Zillow violated its copyrights in photographs of homes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. Concluding the musical works at issue were not works made for hire, the panel reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate is denied. Remanded to consider restitution. Los Angeles County filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas for a natural gas leak that continued for months and caused damage to residents. The criminal charges were resolved by a plea agreement, where a no contest plea was entered to the charge of failure to immediately report gas leak. Plaintiffs sought to set aside plea agreement and seek restitution under the California Constitution. The appeals court held that victims do not have a right to appeal a criminal case judgment, but they do have a right to restitution. However, restitution is only available for crimes where there is an actual conviction.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit alleging defendant breached an exclusive distribution agreement in violation of Puerto Rico's Law 75 of June 24, 1964, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 section 278, the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against defendant and dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff's claim was barred under Law 75's three-year statute of limitations and properly under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f).

(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 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 Third Circuit) - District court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, denying a reimbursement claim for loss on depreciable assets resulting from a merger between two non-profit medical corporations is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Secretary's interpretation of the related party regulations, requiring examination of whether the parties were related pre- and post-merger, is contrary to the plain language of the regulations, and under the proper, pre-merger test, the parties were not related at the time of the transaction; and 2) the district court's determination that the merger was not a bona fide sale was not based on substantial evidence, in light of errors made in determining the value of certain assets.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a securities class action alleging that defendants fraudulently accounted for a transaction, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to prove loss causation because their expert's testimony did not suffice to draw the requisite causal connection between the information in the article at issue and the fraud alleged in the complaint; and 2) the generalized investor reaction of concern causing a temporary share price decline was far too tenuously connected -- indeed, by a metaphoric thread -- to the transaction to support liability.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - District court's denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(d)(3) motion to vacate an underlying consent judgment involving a series of trademark-related actions stemming from plaintiff's sale of a seafood-products business to defendant is affirmed as, given the facts, and given the equitable requirement that the party seeking relief be free from negligence and fault, the district court clearly did not abuse its discretion in finding equitable relief inappropriate in this case.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a suit for tortious interference with prospective business relations and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' alleged participation in derailing the plaintiff company's acquisition by a third party, the Appellate Division's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed by memorandum, where the plaintiffs failed to produce evidentiary proof as to whether: 1) individual defendants participated in a co-defendant's admitted campaign to interfere with the proposed acquisition; 2) defendant entities should be held vicariously liable for the interference; or 3) an individual plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed trial court’s judgment and order denying Plaintiff’s motion for new trial. Defendants were tenants of a commercial property that was subject to eminent domain. When the court for the eminent domain action, awarded Defendants for their loss, Plaintiff filed suit to recover Defendant’s eminent domain award. The trial court held that when a business owner’s property is taken by eminent domain their compensation is separate and apart from property owners interests.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

Holmeswood Transports The Carefree Euphoria Of The Saturday Night Fever Disco Era Into The Future Fueled With Electro-techno-dubstep Vibes Up To Planet Holmeswood

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Medical Board of California's seizure of data from the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) without a warrant or subpoena but supported by good cause in the course of investigating a patient's physician was not a violation of the patient's right to privacy because even if this would be an intrusion on a legally protected privacy interest, the Board's actions were justified.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in a case where a group of pharmaceutical companies had been sued by the District Attorney under California's Unfair Competition Law for allegations that they had engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market, but the suit was based on conduct outside of the county where the DA served and allowing them to proceed with the suit without written consent would permit the DA to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind other DAs, precluding them from pursuing their own relief.

Nu we middenin de coronacrisis zitten en we voorlopig ook nog steeds met de beperkende maatregelen hebben te maken, hebben veel bedrijven het moeilijk. We weten niet hoe lang de situatie nog zo blijft. Als er op een bepaald moment nieuwe ontwikkelingen zijn, zoals een versoepeling van de maatregelen, dan wil je natuurlijk zo snel […]

The Venezuelan military defector identified as the ringleader of the botched coup attempt in Venezuela was likely working as a "double agent" for the same man he allegedly attempted to overthrow, socialist narco-dictator Nicolás Maduro, Breitbart News has learned.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a employer reviews website, brought by a video gaming company against the website operator, seeking the name of a Jane Doe reviewer who purportedly posted confidential information on the website about the employer in violation of a confidentiality agreement, the website operator's petition for a writ directing the trial court to set aside its order to reveal Doe's real name is granted where the employer failed to make a prima facie showing that Doe's statements disclosed confidential information in violation of the nondisclosure agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, reversed a judgment after a jury trial, in part. A photography studio claimed that Zillow violated its copyrights in photographs of homes.

ASM Completes Its 150th Film Score And Retains Jonathan Firstenberg As North American Rep

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

The Multi-talented Recording Artist Is Up For Nominations With Her Album Hellucination And Singles “Save My Soul” And “Crazy (What You Make Me)”

The Multi-talented Recording Artist Is Up For Nominations With Her Album Hellucination And Singles “Save My Soul” And “Crazy (What You Make Me)”

CC Is Now Set To Unleash His Highly Anticipated New Single “I SEE LOVE” On All Digital Services August 9, 2019.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an indigent defendant facing misdemeanor charges was constitutionally entitled to the help of appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal. She had successfully moved to suppress evidence related to driving under the influence. The California Supreme Court agreed with her that she had the right to appointed counsel on the prosecution's appeal of the suppression order.

(Supreme Court of California) - Vacate order and remand. The trial court denied Plaintiff access to ballistics evidence used at his trial to file a habeas corpus petition. The trial court believed that Penal Code section 1054.9 prohibited such a release of evidence. The Supreme court disagreed stating that section 1054.9 referred to physical evidence held by the prosecutor, not evidence held by the court.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

Broadcasting From Piazza D'Armi In Valletta, Malta

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment after trial in a contractual dispute between two industrial supply companies. The case involved the alleged breach of their asset purchase agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an employer was entitled to enforce an employment contract's forum selection clause that required any lawsuits to be brought in Indiana. Granted writ relief to prevent an employee from proceeding with a wrongful-termination lawsuit in a California court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granted writ of mandate and directed trial court to vacate order granting summary adjudication motion. The appeals court held that the trial court’s per se application of Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the contract in question was incorrect.

The pandemic has “unleashed both a global health emergency and an unprecedented economic crisis of historic magnitude,” unbudgeted...

[Updating] As the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic continues to affect countries around the globe with over 230,000 deaths worldwide, and sadly the...

Darren Burchall, a former national youth team footballer who now teaches in Shenzhen, China, recently took the time to salute those taking part in...

By Ezra David Romero

By Sammy Caiola

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that homeowners could not bring a class action asserting a claim under California's Right to Repair Act against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective plumbing fixture used in the construction of their homes. The Act does not permit class actions of this type. Granted the defendant's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.

Love always requires sacrifice.

“Mindfulness” is a buzzword these days. As a recent article in the Sunday New York Times points out:

. . . mindfulness has come to comprise a dizzying range of meanings for popular audiences. It’s an intimately attentive frame of mind. It’s a relaxed-alert frame of mind. It’s equanimity. It’s a form of the rigorous Buddhist meditation called vipassana(“insight”), or a form of another kind of Buddhist meditation known asanapanasmrti (“awareness of the breath”). It’s M.B.S.R. therapy (mindfulness-based stress reduction). It’s just kind of stopping to smell the roses. And last, it’s a lifestyle trend, a social movement and — as a Time magazine cover had it last year — a revolution.

Many Christians will be skeptical of mindfulness simply due to its Buddhist roots, and yet at first glance, there’s something attractive about it. In the midst of an overworked, consumerist culture or production and competition, couldn’t mindfulness offer us all something true and good? Awareness of the present moment—my own emotions, the states of being of those around me, the possibilities inherent in right now—aren’t those all good?

At a glance, sure. And yet, as the author (Virginia Heffernan) of the Times’ piece goes on to note, our current fad of mindfulness is often employed in service of the same work-fueled consumerist values. It will make us, and our children, more productive and less anxious, right?

I think back to my own attempt at greater mindfulness during an exercise “challenge” I committed to with a few friends last year. I pledged to write down everything I was eating and drinking, ...

Continue reading...