It’s nice to have documents, images, and other items from one’s home computer easily accessible, and icloud makes this possible, as it is essentially a virtual desktop with 3GB of available storage. After visitors sign up for a free account, they can store their documents and also collaborate with others via icloud. Visitors are also welcome to sign up for more storage, but there is a fee associated with this memory availability. This version of icloud is compatible with all operating systems.
From The Scout Report, Copyright Internet Scout Project 1994-2011. http://scout.wisc.edu/
The Appellate Division, First Department, held yesterday in Matter of the Estate of H. Kenneth Ranftle, 4214, that recognizing the marriage in Canada of H. Kenneth Ranftle and J. Craig Leiby, who was designated as Mr. Ranftle’s “surviving spouse and sole distributee,” did not violate public policy. “[T]he Legislature’s failure to authorize same-sex couples to enter into marriage in New York or require recognition of validly performed out-of-state same-sex marriages, cannot serve as an expression of public policy for the State,” the unanimous panel wrote in an unsigned ruling.
|A recently published pocket guide for federal judges focuses on the occasional need to seal court records and proceedings.
Published by the Federal Judicial Center, the 22-page pocket guide draws on the voluminous case law to discuss the process courts use to keep some of the proceedings and records confidential.
The guide states: “Essential to the rule of law is the public performance of the judicial function. On occasion, however, there are good reasons for courts to keep parts of some proceedings confidential . . . Usually that means that any transcript made of the proceeding will be regarded as a sealed record.”
The guide (pdf) offers a procedural checklist of considerations when a record is sealed or when a proceeding is closed to the public.
“…This case calls upon us to decide a question of first impression in this Circuit: whether a debt collector violates the FDCPA‘s venue provisions by suing a consumer in a city court in the State of New York when that court lacks power to hear the action because the consumer does not reside in that city or a town contiguous thereto. We hold that such a suit is not brought in the “judicial district or similar legal entity” in which the consumer resides, even when the consumer resides elsewhere within the county containing the city court, and therefore determine that Hess’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion…”