Court Filings, Decisions and Legal Articles : JD Supra : Cases, Briefs, Documents, Forms

Here's an interesting JD Supra Hot Doc from The Law Office of Steven Siegler, one of our newest contributors, located in New Jersey and practicing in all areas of employment law.

Boywitt v. Brunswick Bancorp is a case of unlawful termination involving a potential money laundering scheme and the alleged firing of the bank officer/whistleblower who first discovered and reported the scheme. 

According to Mr. Seigler's document summary:

In late March or early April 2007, Mr. Boywitt learned that a bank customer had repeatedly exchanged thousands of dollars in old $5 bills for new cash. When Mr. Boywitt questioned the Bank's two head tellers about the transactions, they stonewalled him, refused to follow his instruction to monitor the customer further, and allegedly lied to him regarding a transaction where $8,000 of the old cash was exchanged for new.

The Complaint further alleges that Mr. Boywitt, who was obligated by law to report this suspicious activity, notified his boss ... of his intent to file a report with FinCen. Two days later, [his boss] allegedly cursed out Mr. Boywitt and abruptly fired him, saying "you would file [a suspicious activity report] against [Bank] employees? Are you f-----g out of your mind? You're fired!"

In our collection of tips on how to write compelling document summaries ("Pitching Your Hot Documents") we recommend finding the story and wasting no time to tell in clear terms. Mr. Siegler's summary lives up to the job, as does the complaint.

From the complaint here's a detail that reads as though lifted from a dime store detective novel. When the customer in question came to the bank to "exchange several thousand dollars in cash" the teller remarked that the bills smelled old.

The customer's explanation was that his mother died and that he is "finding money" throughout her house.

The teller said that she would've reported the transaction sooner but was told not to by another bank employee.

We checked in by telephone with Mr. Siegler, who has been practicing employment law for ten years in New Jersey ("an employee-friendly state") and in that time has "never seen such a blatant retaliation against someone just doing his job."

"Whether or not there was money laundering, here's the case of a bank's Secrecy Act Compliance Officer simply doing what's required by the law and being fired for it. If every bank in the country was allowed to continue this type of thing it would be open season on these officers - that would be a problem for everyone."

Undoubtedly the bank's version of events will be made available during the case. We look forward to reporting them here as the story unfolds.

Over the last few days we've seen a number of newsworthy filings and decisions in the Hot Docs pages of JD Supra, covering topics as diverse as our contributors. Here are a few:

US SUPREME COURT DECISION ON CHALLENGE TO VOTING LAW:
Yesterday's United States Supreme Court decision, which struck down a challenge to a voter ID law in Indiana. In a 6-3 opinion, the majority said the state interests “are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute,” and the burden imposed on voters was “minimal and justified.” JD Supra contributor EPIC had submitted an amicus brief detailing problems with the law. "Not only has the state failed to establish the need for the voter identification law or to address the disparate impact of the law, the state's voter ID system is imperfect, and relies on a flawed federal identification system." Justice Souter seemed to agree, as he wrote in dissent, “this statute imposes a disproportionate burden upon those without” government-issued photo IDs.

PETITION TO CANCEL FACEBOOK'S TRADEMARK:
A petition before the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel the FACEBOOK trademark presently attributed to Facebook, Inc. The petition alleges that Think Computer Corporation, which posted the document on JD Supra, has been using "FACEBOOK," "FACE BOOK," "UNIVERSAL FACE BOOK," and "FACENET" as trademarks since as early as September 19, 2003 "in association with on-line information services featuring information regarding, and in the nature of, collegiate life, classifieds, virtual communities and social networking."

CHALLENGE TO GOVERNMENT EXCLUSION OF POST-1968 RESIDENTS FROM BEACHES:
A first amended complaint challenging Nevada's Incline Village General Improvement District's  exclusion of some District resident's access to a District  owned beach, allegedly in collusion with the developers of Incline Village pursuant to a 1968 "sweetheart deal." Submitted by attorney Steven Kroll, who has filed the suit on his own behalf (and clearly took note of Jordan Furlong's Tips for writing document summaries for the JD Supra Hot Docs pages).

USDOL AGENT ORANGE CLAIM ISSUED FOR THE DEATH OF A US FEDERAL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE
JD Supra contributor James R. Linehan shares this decision - which, he states, is the "only documented OWCP claim issued by the USDOL for the death of a US federal civilian employee due to Agent Orange."  According to James, after argument in this case, the "United States finally conceded and admitted that the claimant was indeed exposed to Agent Orange as a federal civilian employee in Vietnam and died as result of exposures to Agency Orange. Following the government's admission of liability, an internal U.S. Government Accountability Office document report (GAO-05-371) revealed that the current Administration is well aware of these past toxic exposures of American civilian employees but continues to deny their existence or liability for same."

The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Internet users have a constitutionally protected privacy interest in the disclosure of their identities when surfing the web. (This from a case in which JD Supra contributors EFF and EPIC jointly filed an amicus brief.)

The Court based its decision on the state Constitution - which the New Jersey courts have interpreted to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution - and the factual finding that "Internet users today enjoy relatively complete IP address anonymity when surfing the web." (Read the entire decision here.)

Interestingly, the Court also noted that "if one day new software allowed individuals to type IP addresses into a 'reverse directory' and identify the name of a user . . . today's ruling might need to be reexamined." 

Is the Court saying that companies can eliminate the right to privacy recognized by this decision simply by finding ways to violate it? This seems a bit circular to me. What are your thoughts?

Recent filings from two important cases in which the EFF is involved are now available on JD Supra:

1) EFF's suit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice demanding information about telecommunications companies' efforts to get off the hook for their role in the government's illegal electronic surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. EFF's suit sought the immediate disclosure of the agencies' telecom lobbying records, including any documents concerning briefings, discussions, or other contacts officials have had with representatives of telecommunications companies or members of Congress. On April 4, 2008, the Court granted EFF's request for an order requiring the defendants to produce the records sought, which is available here, along with the other filings in the case.

2) Universal Music Group's suit against an eBay seller based on claims of copyright infringement. EFF and the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP are representing Troy Augusto, whose online auctions included sales of promotional CDs distributed by Universal. Universal claims that CDs marked as "promotional use only" remain the property of Universal and thus can never be resold.  Augusto's position is that the copyright law's "first sale" doctrine makes it clear that the owner of a CD is entitled to resell it without the permission of the copyright holder, and further, that Universal violated section 512(f) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (see Answer & Counterclaim).  Last week, EFF and Keker & Van Nest filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, available here.

Books on JD Supra?

Yes. One of our newest contributors, James B. Atwood, Jr.,  has generously shared a 214-page Death Penalty Defense Motion Book. What is it, exactly? A compilation of documents filed in connection with the defense of a capital case, including:

• jury instructions
  
• motions and memoranda of law relating to:
  
  • discovery
    
  • disclosure of claims
  • introduction of evidence and testimony
    
  • burdens of proof
  • requests for funds, and
    
  • preventing the imposition of the death penalty.

What a terrific resource for capital defense lawyers, or anyone with an interest in this area of the law. Our sincere thanks to James Atwood for sharing this valuable resource on JD Supra.

JD Supra contributor Scott Riddle recently shared this decision by Judge Thomas Agresti of the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the Scoop section of JD Supra.  And the document certainly is Scoop-worthy.

In his decision, Judge Agresti ruled that the U.S. Trustee has the standing and power to investigate a creditor (in this case, Countrywide) - and not only regarding the specifics of the particular bankrupt debtor, but also the creditor's policies and procedures relating to bankruptcy claims. Though I am not a bankruptcy expert, this decision appears to be the first of its kind, and quite provocative.

Here is what  Brian McCaffrey of Leffler, Marcus & McCaffrey, LLC had to say about it:

This is the tip of the iceberg. It is ironic, and, personally pleasing, that the constituencies that shoved this amendment to the bankruptcy code down the throat of a compliant and complicit Congress are now squealing because the Courts are appropriately saying that fraud by anyone, whether creditor or debtor, is an issue of national concern. The Trustee not only has the authority to investigate Countrywide, but the obligation to look for assets of the bankruptcy estate - which may well include a claim against Countrywide for predatory lending practices. 

And bankruptcy attorney Marc Stern's reaction:

It's about time the U.S. Trustee's office did what it was intended to do - oversee the bankruptcy system and investigate fraud by not only debtors, but creditors, as well - who are some of the worst perpetrators. Most debtors do not have the resources to pursue these kinds of claims. Until now, the U.S. Trustee's office was basically a super-collection agency working for creditors. I am glad the judge did his job.

What are your thoughts about this decision? We'd love to hear them.

Recently the Electronic Privacy Information Center joined the ranks at JD Supra. To learn more about this public interest group, please visit their profile page. One of EPIC's first posted documents was a Complaint for Injunctive Relief challenging the Federal Trade Commission in its actions to do with the Google-Doubleclick merger (for more details, download the document here.) The Complaint was tagged as newsworthy and as a result appeared in our Hot Document section - JD Supra's media source of the latest newsworthy filings (also available via RSS feed).

Within two hours of uploading, Executive Director Marc Rotenberg was on the phone with someone from the National Law Journal, who had found the Complaint on JD Supra. (We learned this from Mr. Rotenberg, who emailed us a note of thanks.) The result: a mention in the NLJ's IN BRIEF for March 24, 2008, titled "Suit centers on possible conflict in Google deal." (The piece is available here with paid NLJ subscription.)

That, in a nutshell, is JD Supra's Hot Documents section at work. If you are uploading something that deserves media attention, we encourage you to tag it as a "Hot Document."  And, before you prepare document summaries with the media in mind, be sure to read Jordan Furlong's writing tips on the subject. Give content. Get noticed.

Tomorrow: Content marketing with consumers in mind. What's the real question you should be asking yourself?

One of our newest contributors, the Electronic Privacy Information Center ("EPIC"), is sharing some very Scoop-worthy filings, including the complaint it filed today seeking documents about the federal government's role in an effort to limit accountability of state "Fusion Centers."   According to EPIC, the Virginia Fusion Center is  a database that collects detailed information on ordinary citizens. The Virginia legislature is considering a bill that would limit Virginia's open government and privacy statutes, as well as Virginia's common law right of privacy, for Virginia agencies connected to the Fusion Center - thereby shrouding it in secrecy.

EPIC  had previously submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Virginia State Police for records relating to the Fusion Center.  EPIC's FOIA request focused on the possible role of the US Department of Justice and the US Department of Homeland Security in the development of the Virginia legislation. The Virginia State Police refused to comply with the request, apparently on the grounds that these documents (correspondence and communications between the Police Department and the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice about e.g. the Fusion Center's funding and development) were "relevant to the identification of criminal activity" among other things.

Sign up to JD Supra's RSS Feed for simultaneous access to new filings as this case progresses, and visit EPIC's Information Fusion Centers and Privacy page to learn more about Fusion Centers and the work that EPIC is doing.

When Seattle Center implemented rules prohibiting park performers from engaging in free speech activities without first obtaining a permit, and limiting the locations in which they could perform,  sole practitioner and JD Supra contributor Elena Garella stepped in. The District Court agreed with Elena and local performer, Magic Mike, that these rules violated the First Amendment on their face, but the 9th Circuit reversed.  Elena has now petitioned for rehearing en banc, and is hopeful the Court will grant her petition as it almost immediately requested that the City file a response.

This case, posted as a JD Supra Scoop, caught my attention. I was intrigued by the contrast between this decision (which involved a physical public forum and the right of individuals to avoid speech activities by others) and the ruling in the WikLeak's case, also posted in the Scoop (which involved the virtual public forum of the Internet and the right of individuals to have access to speech).

But, as I looked at the brief something else caught my eye: the significance of a sole practitioner embroiled in a multi-year constitutional case for a client with limited resources, and the presence of Davis Wright Tremaine attorneys on Elena's petition. I telephoned Elena to learn more.  She explained that First Amendment cases give her a lot of satisfaction - she takes them when she is moved by a client's story. Her complete discretion to take these kind of cases is one of the things she cherishes most about her solo practice. Nevertheless, such cases can be taxing. 

So, when the 9th Circuit reversed the district court's ruling, and an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine contacted Elena and offered the assistance of their First Amendment experts, pro bono, Elena gladly accepted. The collaboration, according to Elena, has been a very positive experience.

Kudos to Elena for pursuing her passion, and to Davis Wright Tremaine for sharing their expertise  pro bono in support of a cause in which they believe.

Can publication of confidential and allegedly forged bank records justify shutting down an entire website? Apparently not - thanks to EFF and other public interest groups.

Yesterday, Judge Jeffrey S. White dissolved an injunction that locked the wikileaks.org domain name and disabled the WikiLeaks website. Among the most interesting aspects of this decision:

1. EFF and other public interest organizations intervened as the sole champions of users' First Amendment rights (and did so on a very tight schedule) - one of the defendants (Dynadot) had stipulated to the injunction, and neither defendant briefed this issue;
2. The judge's decision was based, in large part, on his recognition that shutting down WikiLeaks could not, in this day and age, prevent dissemination of the challenged documents - and, in fact, had increased their visibility (p.6); and
3. The judge recognized that, if any order were appropriate, it would be the far more narrow order of requiring the documents to be redacted (p.6).

Whether or not you agree with the decision (I do) - kudos to EFF and the other interveners for stepping up on such short notice to so capably make sure the public's First Amendment rights were addressed.

[More information about this case is available at: JD Supra;  WikiLeaks, and EFF]