SUMMARY OF FACTS 40. Plaintiff, STEVEN HOOPER, repeats, realleges and reiterates each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs “1” though “39” of the Complaint. 41. Defendant, GERARD WARRENS, individually and as an Officer , Sole Director and Sole Manager of STEALTH SOFTWARE, LLC, actively recruited plaintiff, HOOPER , who became an Employee of STEALTH SOFTWARE, L.L.C., on or about July 1, 2013 after retirement from the F.B.I. GERARD WARRENS is a non immigrant citizen of The Netherlands but resides in Cave Creek, Arizona. 42 WARRENS never disclosed to HOOPER at the time of his employment or subsequently when WARRENS solicited money from HOOPER, that the sole manager of STEALTH SOFTWARE, L.L.C was STEALTH SOFTWARE, B.V., a Netherlands business entity …show more content…
Plaintiff alleges that "STEALTH SOFTWARE, L.L.C.", "STEALTH SOFTWARE, B.V.", "STEALTH SOFTWARE HOLDING B.V., "WARRENS HOLDING, B.V., and STEALTH SOFTWARE HOLDINGS S.A.R.L. are alter egos of GERARD WARRENS. 58. Plaintiff alleges that under an alter ego theory, there is no requirement of a showing of fraud, even though in the instant matter, all elements of fraud are present. 59. Plaintiff has clearly illustrated that each of the foreign business entities named herein as co-defendants are the alter ego of WARRENS because each share unity of ownership, officer, directors, management and actually operated as a single economic entity such that it would be inequitable to uphold a legal distinction between them. 60. Each of the above noted foreign entities share common ownership of all of the legal and equitable interests in each other; share the same common officer, and director; the same or similar common marketing image on the website of STEALTH SOFTWARE; the same managerial and supervisory personnel, and business structures for handling investments from outside of The Netherlands, or Luxemburg, and all investor funds were solicited totally within the state of Arizona and from Arizona
The plaintiff is Mary Cary (“Mary”), the widow and Personal Representative of Barry’s estate. Mary is suing Jennifer, Karen, and Jim for the death of Barry, pursuant to Florida’s Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine (“FDID”).
3. Assuming that she was, a question whether the respective defendants, any, all, or who of them, were proper subjects for the injunction prayed, as holding the bonds without sufficient title, and herein -- and more particularly as respected Hardenberg, and Birch, Murray & Co. -- a question of negotiable paper, and the extent to which holders, asserting themselves holders bona fide and for value, of paper payable "to bearer," held it discharged of precedent equities.
...motion. The court correctly held that there were insufficient allegations to state a First Amendment claims against Defendant. Furthermore, the court accurately concluded that Plaintiff failed to show that relevant aspects of Defendant’s search engine were equivalent of a traditional public forum. The Court decided properly when dismissing Plaintiff’s defamation allegations because these did not alleged malice. The holding of the United States Supreme Court in Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1991), United States v. E. I.du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956), Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985), the interpretation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125, Cal. Civil Code §47 and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16 and the decision in New.Net, Inc. v. Lavasoft, 356 F. Supp.2d 1090 (2004) were crucial to properly decide on the case.
In Starlight Int’l, LTD. v. Lifeguard Health, LLC, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58927 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2008), California resident and plaintiff filed a complaint against Pennsylvania resident and defendant, claiming trademark infringement and unfair competition. Starlight is a limited partnership that markets and sells dietary supplements and Lifeguard also markets and sells dietary supplements and maintains an interactive website where it displays its product. Starlight alleges it owns the registered trademarks of Lifeguard, Lifeguard Junior, and Lifeguard Joint Formula. Defendant moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, alternatively, to transfer venue to Pennsylvania. Defendant states that there is no basis for which
"MORSE v. FREDERICK." Cornell University Law School. N.p., 19 Mar. 2007. Web. 10 Dec. 2013.
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School. Ed. Fray, William C. April 2000. Yale University. 1 May 2000. (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wilson14.html)
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
In Los Angeles Time, it reported a lawsuit filed in San Jose federal court in 2013 by two Facebook users Matthew Campbell and Michael Hurley about Facebook invasion of privacy. "it scanned the content of private messages sent between users for links to websites, which were then used for delivering targeted advertising. The complaint alleges that this violated the federal and state privacy laws by 'reading its users ' private Facebook messages without their consent."(Lien) While users send messages that include links to a third-party website, Facebook will scan the content of the message, through following the link and searching for information to profile the message-sender 's Web activity, then get profit by sharing the data with third parties such as advertisers, marketers, and other data aggregators. Such action was violated by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and California privacy and unfair competition
The U.S. Attorney who argued against LaMacchia wanted the case to broaden the interpretation of the wire fraud statute to apply to software piracy. The use of ...
The major complication introduced if economic espionage or misappropriation of a trade secret involves a foreign entity is prosecuting the person responsible for the theft. These cases often go unreported due to the low success rate of the court cases. It is extremely difficult to find enough evidence to convict the culprit. “Often, the greatest challenge in prosecuting economic espionage, as opposed to trade secret theft, is being able to prove that the theft was intended to benefit a foreign government or foreign instrumentality (Coleman, 2014)”. “The beneficiary of the stolen trade secrets may be traced to an overseas entity, but obtaining evidence that proves the entity’s relationship with a foreign government can be difficult (Coleman, 2014)”. Even though the investigation and litigation of these crimes can time consuming, companies can recoup potential losses and further protect their intellectual capital by taking action (Barbanel,
In the film, A Civil Action, Trial Procedure was shown throughout the entire movie. There are many steps that need to be completed before a verdict and judgment can be reached. These steps are the pleadings, methods of discovery, pretrial hearings, jury selection, opening statements, introduction of evidence, cross examinations, closing arguments, instructions to the jury, and the verdict and judgment. The case in this movie was actually called Anderson v. Cryovac. The plaintiffs are the Anderson family, the Gamache family, the Kane family, the Robbins family, the Toomey family, and the Zona family. The plaintiffs’ attorneys are Jan Schlichtmann, Joe Mulligan, Anthony Roisman, Charlie Nesson, and Kevin Conway. The two co- defendants are W.R. Grace and Beatrice Foods. The two co-defendants’ attorneys are William Cheeseman, Jerome Facher, Neil Jacobs, and Michael Keating.
As per the study and references, I have come to some conclusions that the group “Shadow Broker” is not some bunch of hackers, whereas these are a state-sponsored elite group, as these cyber tools are like cyber-nuclear bomb and the one having these in his possession know that more than half of the agencies around the globe are on the hunt for them. Whereas the publishers are not cybercriminals if they were some cybercriminal they would have started making malicious tools for themselves and turning the exploits into virus, worm and profiting themselves from
Despite the State dropping its charges of “breaking and entering with the intent to commit a felony” and JSTOR expressing no interest in charging Aaron Schwartz and MIT “Neutrality”, the federal prosecution by Carmen Ortiz continued to push for a heavy prosecution. Shortly following the rejection of a possible plea agreement by Ortiz, Swartz committed suicide by hanging. Immediately a public out lash immerged against MIT and the Federal Prosecution. The Hacktivist group Anonymous, subsequently conducted a series of cyber-attacks against MIT and the Department of Justice for its involvement. I have provided a timeline of the claimed attacks by Anonymous associate with the Aaron Swartz case.
"Wiebe v Bouchard, 2005 BCSC 47." Roger McConchie Law - Defamation Privacy Media Injurious Falsehood Breach of Confidence Internet Law & Legal Services. McConchie Law Corporation. Web. 11 Apr. 2011.
Case No. 11-CR-00471-DLJ (PSG).This is a court case in which the United States of America opened a file against 14 defendants who tried to violate a protected computer. “The 14 defendants in this case were indicted on July 13, 2011 on 15 counts of conspiracy to cause damage to a protected computer and aiding and abetting causing intentional damage to a protected computer,