[sticky entry] Sticky: Sticky Post: Intro

Dec. 13th, 2009 07:39 am
elf: Computer chip with location dot (You Are Here)
[personal profile] elf
Warning: Contents of this post may change without warning.
This community was created so [personal profile] elf had somewhere to throw the results of her obsessive PDF conversion activities. Other people are welcome to join the timewasting fun.

It will contain full texts of various legal rulings, on subjects like copyright law, anti-discrimination of various sorts, marriage rights, religious freedoms, government malfeasance, and freedom of speech. And fandom, if there are any legal rulings that relate to fandom and none of those topics.

Details inside the cut tag. )
elf: We have met the enemy and he is us. (Met the enemy)
[personal profile] elf

Kirtsaeng vs Wiley, US Supreme Court
Oral Arguments; Oct 29, 2012
(First Sale Doctrine case)

LINK TO ORIGINAL: Transcript at EFF site
~10,500 words total.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPAP KIRTSAENG, DBA
BLUECHRISTINE99 Petitioner

v.

JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC.

No. 11-697

Washington, D.C. Monday, October 29, 2012

The above-entitled matter came on for oral argument before the Supreme Court of the United States at 11:05 a.m.

Appearances )

 

Contents )

P R O C E E D I N G S

(11:05 a.m.)

E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, on behalf of Petitioner )

 

THEODORE B. OLSON, ESQ, on behalf of Respondent )

 

MALCOLM L. STEWART, as amicus curiae, supporting Respondent )

 

E. JOSHUA ROSENKRANZ, rebuttal on behalf of Petitioner )

elf: Rainbow fist (Join the Impact)
[personal profile] elf
GSE vs Dow, Superior Court Of New Jersey
Filed June 29, 2011
Initial complaint

LINK TO ORIGINAL: at LambdaLegal
Link to Searchable PDF: at my dropbox
~11500 words total.

Superior Court Of New Jersey Law Division: Mercer County
Docket No. __________
Civil Action

RECEIVED JUN 29 2011
Mercer County Superior Court
CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

GARDEN STATE EQUALITY; et al )

Plaintiffs,
- vs -

PAULA DOW, in her official capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey; et al )

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs, Garden State Equality ("GSE"), which is the state's largest organization advocating for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender ("LGBT") rights; and committed same-sex couples and their minor children named herein ) seek a declaration that their exclusion from the institution of civil marriage violates Article I, Paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution of 1947 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that for those couples who are legally married in another jurisdiction, it is unconstitutional for the Defendants to deny recognition of marriages validly entered in other jurisdictions by same-sex couples. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction preventing the Defendants from denying them access to civil marriage, and from maintaining the separate and unequal legal status of "civil union" solely for same-sex couples, and for those same-sex couples who are legally married in another jurisdiction, enjoining the Defendants from denying recognition of those marriages.

Introduction continued: )

Parties )

Venue )

Statement of Facts )
Claims for Relief )
Prayer for Relief )

Certificate of No Other Actions )
Designation of Trial Counsel )
elf: Is copyright working? (Is Copyright Working?)
[personal profile] elf
"Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011"—"PROTECT IP"
Available May 12, 2011

Link to original: Protect IP draft at Scribd.com
Approx 4000 words. This is a draft, grabbed from the links in the EFF post condemning it. Original grammar & phrasing preserved.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the 'Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011' or the 'PROTECT IP Act of 2011'.
2. Definitions )
3. Overseas Websites )
4. Eliminating financial incentive )
5. Taking action )
6. Savings clauses )
elf: Rainbow fist (Join the Impact)
[personal profile] elf
Log Cabin Republicans v USA (DADT military)
Ruling released on September 8, 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL: PDF of Opinion at CACD site
Approx 22,000 words. Apologies for sloppy html in spots. Intend to fix later.

LCR v USA header )

Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans attacks the constitutionality of the statute known as the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Act ("the Act" or "the Policy"), found at 10 U.S.C. § 654, and its implementing regulations.[1] Plaintiff's challenge is two-fold: it contends the Act violates its members' rights to substantive due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and its members' rights of freedom of speech, association, and to petition the government, guaranteed by the First Amendment. [2]

The Court finds Plaintiff Log Cabin Republicans (sometimes referred to in this Order as "Log Cabin," "LCR," or "Plaintiff"), a non-profit corporation, has established standing to bring and maintain this suit on behalf of its members. Additionally, Log Cabin Republicans has demonstrated the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Act, on its face, violates the constitutional rights of its members. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in its First Amended Complaint: a judicial declaration to that effect and a permanent injunction barring further enforcement of the Act.
Contents )

Proceedings )

Standing )

Evidence )

Plaintiff's Challenge under Due Process )

Plaintiff's First Amendment Challenge )

Conclusion )
elf: Rainbow fist (Join the Impact)
[personal profile] elf

Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Final ruling released on August 4, 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL: www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL (Bookmarked PDF or Word document available on request; just send me a PM with your email address.)
Approx.40,000 words. Formatting may not show a, b, c lists instead of 1, 2, 3. Sorry about that.

Perry v Schwarzenneger header )


(Linked) Table of Contents )

Plaintiffs challenge a November 2008 voter-enacted amendment to the California Constitution (“Proposition 8” or “Prop 8”). Cal Const Art I, § 7.5. In its entirety, Proposition 8 provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Plaintiffs allege that Proposition 8 deprives them of due process and of equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that its enforcement by state officials violates 42 USC § 1983.

Plaintiffs are two couples. Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside in Berkeley, California and raise four children together. Jeffrey Zarrillo and Paul Katami reside in Burbank, California. Plaintiffs seek to marry their partners and have been denied marriage licenses by their respective county authorities on the basis of Proposition 8. No party contended, and no evidence at trial suggested, that the county authorities had any ground to deny marriage licenses to plaintiffs other than Proposition 8.

Having considered the trial evidence and the arguments of counsel, the court pursuant to FRCP 52(a) finds that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that its enforcement must be enjoined.


Background )
Procedural History )
Plaintiffs' Case )
Proponents' Defense )
Trial Proceedings & Summary of Testimony )
Credibility: Plaintiffs' Witnesses )
Credibility: Proponents' Witnesses )
Findings of Facts )
Facts: The Parties )
Whether Evidence Supports Refusal to Recognize Marriage )
Whether Evidence Shows an Interest in Differentiating )
Whether Evidence Shows a Private Moral View )
Conclusions of Law: Due Process )
Conclusions of Law: Equal Protection )
Conclusion )
Remedies )

elf: Rainbow fist (Join the Impact)
[personal profile] elf
Perry v Schwarzenegger (Prop 8 California),
Closing arguments delivered on June 16, 2010.
Link to original: http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/hearing-transcripts/perry-trial-closing-arguments-transcript/
Approx. 35,000 words.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE VAUGHN R. WALKER

NO. C 09-2292-VRW

KRISTIN M. PERRY, SANDRA B. STIER, PAUL T. KATAMI, and JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO,

Plaintiffs,

VS.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, in his official capacity as Governor of California; EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health and State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O'CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; and DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles,

Defendants.

San Francisco, California
Wednesday
June 16, 2010



TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported By: Katherin Powell Sullivan, CRR CSR 5812
Debra L. Pas, CRR CSR 1196
Official Reporters – U.S. District Court

Volume 13
Pages 2953 -3115


Appearances )

Intro Proceedings )

Olson (Plaintiff) Closing Argument )

Stewart (Proponent) Closing Argument )

Cooper (Proponent) Closing Argument )

Olson Rebuttal Argument )

Index & Certificate )

elf: Computer chip with location dot (You Are Here)
[personal profile] elf
Tenenbaum copyright (torrenting) ruling
Dec 7, 2009
Link to original: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23790774/Fair-Use-Memorandum-and-Order-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum
Other docs: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23790774/Fair-Use-Memorandum-and-Order-in-Sony-v-Tenenbaum

Case 1:07-cv-11446-NG Document 22 Filed 12/07/2009

Sony v Tenenbaum Header & Contents )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
JOEL TENENBAUM, Defendant.

Case No. 07cv11446-NG

GERTNER, D.J.:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


December 7, 2009
I. Introduction )
II. Equitable Defense )
III. Summary Judgment/A. Legal Standard )
B. Fair Use Standard )
C. Fair Use Analysis )
IV. Conclusion )

Footnotes )
elf: Pie chart with question mark (Pie Chart of Fail)
[personal profile] elf
Salinger Copyright Ruling, complete text: 8400 words
7/1/2009

LINK TO ORIGINAL: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/20090701salinger.pdf
(Searchable PDF w/bookmarks & Word document also available on request. Email me.)

Salinger v Colting header )

Plaintiff J.D. Salinger brings suit against Defendants Fredrik Colting, writing under the name John David California, Windupbird Publishing Ltd., Nicotext A.B., and ABP, Inc., doing business as SCB Distributors Inc., alleging claims for Copyright Infringement and common law Unfair Competition. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' novel, 60 Years Later; Coming Through the Rye (hereinafter "60 Years"), is a derivative work of his novel, The Catcher in the Rye (hereinafter "Catcher"), and that the character of Mr. C from 60 Years, is an infringement on his character, Holden Caulfield, from Catcher.

Plaintiff now moves for a preliminary injunction preventing Defendants from publishing, advertising, or otherwise distributing 60 Years in the United States of America during the pendency of this suit. For the following reasons, a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.
I. Introduction )
II. Discussion A. The Preliminary Injunction Standard )
B. The Fair Use Doctrine )
C. Applying the Four Factor Analysis to 60 Years )
III. Conclusion )

Footnotes )
Page generated Sep. 29th, 2016 03:19 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios