Fax or malware? This is clearly malware.

The most confusing Paypal phishing scam ever!

(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.

(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) - 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.

(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.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, and vacating the district court's judgment after jury trial in favor of Oracle on its copyright claims against a provider of third party support, affirming judgments of infringement, but reversing judgment as to California and Nevada statutes that weren't violated by use of automated tools, reducing damages accordingly, and vacating the permanent injunction and reversing the award of attorney's fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of attorney's fees in a copyright infringement case. A man agreed to pay $750 in statutory damages to a film production company for illegally downloading a movie using a peer-to-peer network and distributing it 80 times, and the parties agreed that the court would decide whether to award attorney's fees. When the court denied fees, the production company appealed. Agreeing with the company, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court failed to correctly apply certain factors in deciding whether to award attorney fees.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a prevailing party only the six categories of costs specified in the general costs statute. A software manufacturer that obtained an infringement judgment against another company argued that the Act's reference to "full costs" meant that a court could award it costs beyond the six categories. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument for additional costs in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(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 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.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Reversed. The substitution of the guardians of the children of a deceased man discovered a year after the filing of a wrongful death action by his mother was proper despite the substitution occurring after the statutory limitations period. The substitution relates back to the date of the initial complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action alleging RICO violations in connection with defendants' acquisition of a Polish telecommunications company, the dismissal of the action on forum non conveniens grounds is affirmed where the relevant evidence and witnesses were located in Poland and plaintiff was engaging in forum-shopping.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In one of the last Winstar cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, involving a plaintiff's suit alleging that the adoption of the FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the government's obligations under the supervisory merger contracts, judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the trial court did not commit clear err in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach would result in lost profits to plaintiff in an amount commensurate with the ultimate award for lost profits; 2) the trial court did not err in finding of a causal connection between the government's breach of contract and plaintiff's sale of RFC (a mortgage banking company); 3) the trial court did not err in awarding lost profit damages attributable to plaintiff's forced sale of RFC; 4) the trial court permissibly concluded that NAMCO (mortgage company) was a reasonable commercial substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC; but 5) the case is remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether an error was made in offsetting plaintiff's mitigation costs by NAMCO's retained earnings through 1997 and, if so, how to correct the error.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In an objection to the Vice Chancellor's approval of a settlement among a majority of Countrywide stockholders, Countrywide directors, and Bank of America (BOA), related to Countrywide's merger with BOA, denial of the objection is affirmed where the Vice Chancellor did not abuse his discretion by holding that objector's derivative suit claims for breach of asserted duties were worthless and, therefore, added no conceivable value to the merger.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by beer consumers suing to enjoin the now-consummated acquisition of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. by InBev NV/SA on the ground that the transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed where any antitrust injury plaintiffs could prove would be both speculative and localized, and the hardship and competitive disadvantage resulting from forced divestiture would be both dramatic and certain.

(United States First Circuit) - In this case, plaintiff-software-company hired defendant-bank to assist it in finding an acquisition partner. The acquisition partner later was found to have fraudulently overstated its earnings, and bankruptcy ensued for the merged company, after which the present litigation followed, alleging various common-law claims including gross negligence, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and unfair or deceptive acts in violation of Mass. Ben. Laws ch. 93A. Judgment finding defendant not liable on all claims is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's conduct, even if sloppy and unforthcoming, was not unfair or deceptive, the factual findings are supported by the record, and the court correctly applied the ch. 93A legal standard to those findings; and 2) there were no other errors, and even if there were, those errors were harmless.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that two merging companies both breached an asset purchase agreement. The buyer and seller each argued that the other party had breached their agreement. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District held that the seller's breach of certain post-closing obligations did not excuse the buyer from its obligation to pay the full purchase price, because these covenants were independent. The appeals court therefore reversed denial of the seller's JNOV motion.

Fresh Off Their GRAMMY Nomination For Their CD, Teach Me Thy Statutes,the PaTRAM Institute Will Record Their Next CD In Saratov, Russia This August.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. District court granted summary judgment to Defendant police department against Plaintiff’s claim of civil rights violations for seizure of firearms from residence and failure to return them.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff, a rental property owner, filed suit against Defendant, a rent control board, to prevent certain properties from being subject to rent control. The trial court agreed with Plaintiff, but the appeals court held that the rent board did not have the authority to exempt rental units from rent control under the Santa Monica City Charter.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder on a felony-murder theory. Defendant challenged his convictions in part based on Senate Bill 1437 that amended the felony-murder rule. The appeals court concluded that Defendant was not entitled to relief, but that relief could be available to other defendants by petitioning their trial courts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

A Gold Mine Of Analogue & Digital Techno Sounds Awaits You

A New Horizon Of DnB Sounds Covering Everything From Liquid D&B To Neurofunk

Sakis Gouzonis, One Of The Most Famous Greek Electronic Music Composers, Has Just Released His 12th Studio Album, “Precious Time.”

Blurring The Lines Between Hip Hop & Trap, Swagger Adds Attitude To Your Tracks

Mexico's Mike Rosales Seeks To Rock The Underground House Scene With "Just Feel".

A Straight Talking Drum & Bass Sample Pack That Pushes The Envelope In DnB Tools

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense's sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none of the patents were invalid for obviousness.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Returning once again after climbing and descending the appellate ladder several times, the court held that the defendant had not forfeited its preemption defense and that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act preempts state law remedies for an applicant's failure to comply with aspects of the Act, and affirming the dismissal of the state law claims.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of a case in which a class of purchasers of securities issued by a drug company that the investors said recklessly misled them about their target date for submitting an application to the Food and Drug Administration for a drug approval because the court did not err in finding that they had failed to state a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's conclusion that Monsanto and others failed to state a claim in a suit where they averred that Proposition 65's reliance on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's determinations about which chemicals cause cancer improperly granted a foreign entity authority over domestic affairs.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

“Als je iemand vertrouwt, maak je hem betrouwbaar”, zei de Romeinse filosoof Seneca. Maar geldt dat nog steeds in deze snel veranderende online wereld? Kun je in tijden van alternatieve feiten en online oplichters wel uitgaan van vertrouwen? En als asociaal eigenbelang op de loer ligt? Zeker in organisaties willen we graag ‘in control’ zijn […]

Actress and left-wing activist Alyssa Milano has promoted a deceptively edited video about Vice President Mike Pence that was created by late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel -- even though the video has been debunked and Kimmel has publicly apologized for it.

Amnesty advocates are working overtime to portray illegal migrants as heroic essential workers in the national campaign to contain China's coronavirus.

On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “All In,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) discussed what kind of economic stimulus should be passed to respond to the coronavirus and stated that it would be “an economic disaster” if President Trump didn’t fund the

Physician and Rep. Gregory Murphy said on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily that “draconian” lockdowns are no longer needed in many places.

Nearly three-fourths of U.S. adults say China bears responsibility for American coronavirus deaths, a Morning Consult tracker poll released Friday revealed.