Foray Technologies

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/13/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons as in 2004 my truck was an arson target, my truck was ablaze on 680, my truck later targeted by hit and run driver, my Ford Explorer rigged ABS system to flip me while driving north, in 2011 returning from a week of working in Modesto for PG&E someone followed me for 50 miles then tried to flip me, and on July 20th 2011 they blinded me then pushed me into oncoming traffic.  

And I know quite a few of this victim list and that is one too many.   

Related: Arson / Arson
======================================================================




KWAN SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiff, v. FORAY
TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Defendant.
No. C 12-03762 SI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708
January 22, 2013, Decided
January 22, 2013, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Kwan Software Eng'g, Inc. v. Foray
Techs., LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157194 (N.D. Cal.,
Nov. 1, 2012)
CORE TERMS: software, digital, workflow,
authenticity, authentication, customer, authenticate,
guidelines, literally, hash, falsity, Lanham Act, user,
preliminary injunction, false advertising, injunction,
consumer, algorithm, video, irreparable harm, message,
authenticated, literal, purports, false statements,
advertisement, technology, authenticating, acquisition,
distance
COUNSEL: [*1] For Kwan Software Engineering, Inc.,
a California corporation, doing business as Veripic, Inc.,
Plaintiff: Dhaivat H. Shah, LEAD ATTORNEY, David
Ira Tobias Siegel, GRELLAS SHAH LLP, Cupertino,
CA; George Grellas, George Grellas & Associates,
Cupertino, CA.
For Foray Technologies, LLC, Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Defendant: Chip Cox, James Steven
Greenan, Greenan, Peffer, Sallander & Lally, LLP, San
Ramon, CA.
JUDGES: SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District
Judge.
OPINION BY: SUSAN ILLSTON
OPINION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DENYING
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
Plaintiff Kwan Software Engineering, Inc., d/b/a
Veripic, Inc. ("Veripic") has moved to enjoin defendant
Foray Technologies LLC ("Foray") from making certain
public representations that allegedly constitute false
advertising under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and under
California law. Foray has filed an opposition, and Veripic
has replied. The Court held a hearing on the motion on
December 17, 2012. Having considered the parties'
arguments, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motion
for a preliminary injunction, for the reasons discussed
below.
BACKGROUND
Veripic is a California corporation that provides [*2]
software for handling digital evidence to police and fire
departments, as well as to other entities that need to store
and retrieve photos, video, and audio files. First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶ 1, 7, 9. Veripic and
Foray are direct competitors in the digital
evidence-related software market, which mainly consists
Page 1of law enforcement agencies. Id. ¶ 9.
Veripic's complaint states seven causes of action
against Foray: (1) copyright infringement; (2) inducement
of breach of contract; (3) contributory and induced
copyright infringement; (4) violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act; (5) false advertising and
unfair competition under the Lanham Act; (6) false
advertising under California Law; and (7) unfair
competition under California Law. However, Veripic's
instant motion only seeks to enjoin Foray's behavior with
respect to allegations of false advertising under § 43(a) of
the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) and under Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
Veripic produces and sells the "Digital Photo Lab"
("DPL") software, which is "a centerpiece of its digital
evidence management suite designed for law enforcement
agencies." FAC ¶ 8. The "most popular" feature of
Veripic's [*3] DPL software is the "Calibration Module,"
which permits users to measure the real life length of
objects (in inches or metric units) or distances between
objects in a photo using a "simple point and click." Id. ¶
10. As a result, users can know the precise distances
within photos and accurately print life-size or scaled
images. Id. ¶ 11.
Foray produces and sells the Authenticated Digital
Asset Management System ("ADAMS") software to the
same customer base as Veripic targets with its DPL
software. 1 Id. ¶ 9. Foray's ADAMS software has an
"Image Calibration Utility" that performs substantially
the same function as Veripic's "Calibration Module" -- to
allow users to accurately abstract real-life distance from a
photo. Id. ¶ 15-16. However, until July 2009, Foray's
Utility did so in a more "cumbersome" way than Veripic's
"simple point and click" method. Id. Foray's Utility
required customers to know the exact real life horizontal
or vertical distance in a photo and to engage in a
"multi-step process" in order to obtain real life
measurements. Id. ¶ 16.
1 Although "ADAMS" originally referred to the
software at issue in this case, Foray now uses
"ADAMS" to cross-brand a suite of related
products, [*4] including ADAMS Property &
Evidence, ADAMS Crime Scene Photo/Video,
ADAMS Bag & Tag, ADAMS Latent/ACE-V,
and ADAMS Video Interview.
The ADAMS software employs a "hash function,"
which allows the user to validate whether a piece of
digital evidence has been manipulated or altered between
the time it is entered into the ADAMS software system
and a later time when a user wishes to make use of that
piece of digital evidence. Id. ¶ 32. Veripic's DPL
software has technology that allows the user to validate
not only whether digital evidence has been altered since it
was entered in the Veripic software system, but also
whether the digital evidence has been altered from the
moment the picture was originally taken.
The gravamen of Veripic's false advertising claim is
that since 2008, Foray has misled the public about certain
industry standards and the capabilities of Foray's own
software, and by implication, the capabilities of Veripic's
similar software, insofar as they comply with those
standards. FAC ¶ 22-39. In particular, it is alleged that
Foray falsely represents that its ADAMS software has the
ability to "authenticate" images consistent with guidelines
propounded by the Scientific Working [*5] Group on
Imaging Technology ("SWGIT"). Id. ¶ 23-24.
Accordingly, Veripic now seeks to enjoin Foray from (1)
using the name "Authenticated Digital Asset
Management System" or "ADAMS" or any other name
that states or implies that Foray's software authenticates
digital assets; (2) stating that Foray's software
authenticates digital assets; (3) representing that SWGIT
guidelines endorse the use of hash functions as the best
way to authenticate digital assets and that Foray's
software complies with SWGIT guidelines; and (4)
stating that Foray's software is the only software that
complies with the SWGIT "requirement" contained in the
workflow described in SWGIT Section 13. If successful
on this motion, Veripic also requests that Foray post in a
prominent place on the landing site of its website that it
has been preliminarily enjoined from making the above
statements and linking a copy of the Court's order
granting the motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
"A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he
is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his
favor, and that an injunction [*6] is in the public
interest." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S.
7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). A
preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never
awarded as of right. Id. at 24 (citing Munaf v. Geren, 553
Page 2
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *2U.S. 674, 689-690, 128 S. Ct. 2207, 171 L. Ed. 2d 1,
(2008)). In each case, courts "must balance the competing
claims of injury and must consider the effect on each
party of the granting or withholding of the requested
relief." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. at
24 (citing Amoco Production Co. v. Village of Gambell,
AK, 480 U.S. 531, 542, 107 S. Ct. 1396, 94 L. Ed. 2d 542
(1987)).
DISCUSSION
Veripic contends that an injunction is necessary in
order to prevent a loss of prospective customers and
damage to its goodwill. Veripic also contends that Foray's
misrepresentations threaten the effectiveness of criminal
investigations and prosecutions nationwide, where law
enforcement officials are erroneously relying on evidence
management software that is not capable of doing what it
purports to do. Foray responds that Veripic's fears are
overstated because the purchasers are highly
sophisticated consumers capable of discerning whether
the product they purchased is actually capable of
performing the functions it purports to perform. More
important, [*7] Foray denies that the three "false"
statements at issue here are literally false, as required by
the Lanham Act. Therefore, Foray contends that Veripic
has no likelihood of success on the merits. It is to that
first issue the Court now turns.
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
To succeed on a claim of false advertising under the
Lanham Act, the plaintiff must show that: (1) the
defendant made a false statement either about its own or
another's product; (2) in a commercial advertisement; (3)
that deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial
segment of its audience; (4) that the deception is material,
in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decision; (5)
that the defendant caused its false statement to enter
interstate commerce; and (6) plaintiff has been or is likely
to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by
direct diversion of sales from itself to the defendant, or
by a lessening of the goodwill associated with plaintiff's
product. Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solutions, 513
F.3d 1038, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008).
2
2 The parties agree that false advertising under
California law requires the same showing of
falsity as the Lanham Act.
To demonstrate [*8] falsity within the meaning of
the Lanham Act, a plaintiff may show that the statement
was literally false, either on its face or by necessary
implication, or that the statement was literally true but
likely to mislead or confuse consumers. Southland Sod
Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir.
1997). To be "literally false" the statement must be
unambiguously false. In re Century 21-RE/MAX Real
Estate Adver. Claims Litig., 882 F. Supp. 915, 923 (C.D.
Cal. 1994).
When evaluating statements for literal falsity, the
statements should be analyzed in their full context.
Southland Sod Farms,108 F.3d at 1139. Where the
statements were made to sophisticated consumers with
unique background knowledge and experience, the court
should consider that as part of the relevant context. See,
e.g.,Core-Vent Corp. v. Nobel Industries, 163 F.3d 605,
[published in full-text format at 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS
22175] at * 4 (9th Cir. 1998) (unpub.) ("Of course, we do
not ignore the context in which these studies were
presented ( . . . to a professional conference and . . . in a
scientific journal); Campagnolo S.R.L. v. Full Speed
Ahead, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46176, at *18 (W.D.
Wash. May 11, 2010) ( to determine literal falsity, "the
first question [*9] is: what does the person to whom the
advertisement is addressed find to be the message?");
Utah Medical Products v. Clinical Innovations, 79 F.
Supp. 2d 1290, 1309 (D. Utah 1999) ("While actual
consumer confusion is not necessary to assert a claim of
literal falsity, the perspective of the relevant consumer
population is necessary in determining whether the
advertising could be viewed as false.").
Three statements are at the heart of Veripic's false
advertising claim. Foray contends that Veripic cannot
establish falsity, materiality, and injury for any of the
three statements. As to falsity, Veripic contends only that
the statements are literally false. Veripic does not present
any evidence that, in the alternative, the statements
misled, confused, or deceived consumers. All three
statements revolve around the meaning of the term
"authenticity" as that term is understood by law
enforcement customers and others in the market for
digital evidence management software.
A. Statement One
Veripic alleges that Foray has disseminated the
following false statement in advertisements and responses
to requests for proposals: "Foray's ADAMS software is
the only software that complies with the SWGIT [*10]
Page 3
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *6'requirement' contained in the workflow described in
Section 13, Best Practices for Maintaining the Integrity
of Digital Images and Digital Video of the SWGIT
Guidelines." Mot. at 7. Connected with that statement,
Foray also advertises "NOTE: While some vendors may
claim they are ASCLD or SWGIT compliant, no other
digital evidence management vendor complies with the
SWGIT workflow #2 [described in Section 13 of the
SWGIT Guidelines]. ONLY the FORAY ADAMS
solution meets this requirement!" Id. at 9. Foray made
these statements to law enforcement agencies in Oakland
County, Michigan and Seattle, Washington. Kwan Decl.,
Exs. A, B.
Veripic argues that this statement is literally false in
two ways: (1) the Section 13 SWGIT workflow ("Section
13") referenced in Foray's advertisement is not a
"requirement," but rather it is "workflow #2" of four
"example" workflows listed in that section; (2) the word
"only" is literally false because ADAMS is not alone
among software consistent with this workflow, since
Veripic's DPL software is also consistent with this
workflow. Foray contends that this statement is accurate
in its context.
The "requirement" at issue here is referred to as an
"example" in [*11] the SWGIT workflow. Siegel Decl.,
Ex 1 at 4. Each "workflow" is simply a list of steps users
may take in order to achieve some software objective.
SWGIT describes these workflows as "best practices"
and prefaces that, "[t]he following . . . list of specific
workflow examples . . . is not exhaustive as each
situation requires tailoring a specific process that should
be outlined in an organization's SOPs." Id. Veripic
contends that calling an example a "requirement" is
literally false. Foray argues that its use of "requirement"
does not mean that its software is the only way to be
consistent with the SWGIT workflow. Rather, its
ADAMS software is one known way to comply with
SWGIT. In context, the Court agrees with Foray. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines "requirement" as
"something wanted or needed." Oxford English
Dictionary, 3d Ed. Here, Foray states that its use of
"requirement" is intended to convey that its software uses
a series of steps known to be wanted or needed by the
example workflow -- i.e, consistent with it, as it is
written. Foray argues that its use of "requirement" does
not exclude the possibility that others can add or change
steps in the workflow. Its use here [*12] only guarantees
to customers that Foray's software, at a minimum, is
consistent with the example.
Veripic also takes issue with Foray's assertion that
only its ADAMS software complies with workflow #2.
Veripic contends that this use of "only" is literally false
because Veripic's DPL software also "fits within the same
workflow." Mot. at 10. However, Veripic undercuts its
argument in the very same sentence, noting that in
complying with the workflow, DPL "also provides other
features to ensure the integrity of digital evidence stored
in its stems." Id. Veripic's product cannot be literally
consistent with the workflow where its product deviates
from the steps listed in that workflow in order to "provide
other features." Foray contends that it uses "only" to
mean that its software is the only one that meets the
workflow's specific series of steps, not its general
outcome. As Foray points out, the left column of
workflow #2 describes a series of steps in which copies
of the original image are created, so that processing
functions can be performed in an outside program, while
maintaining the original image. See Kwan Decl., Ex. A at
13. In other words, the user can make working copies of
[*13] digital files and work on them in other imaging
software, such as Adobe Photoshop. Veripic specifically
eschewed this process as cumbersome and brags that its
DPL "has methods for enhancing images without
changing the actual file, and without creating messy
duplicates, allowing you to enhance your evidence but
never compromise it." Witzke Decl., Ex. A. Thus,
Veripic's DPL software does not simply have "other
features." Rather, it has an entirely different, perhaps
better or simpler method for achieving the outcome
described in workflow #2, that nonetheless does not
literally comply with it. Moreover, Foray has shown that
it literally complies with the specific set of steps
described in the workflow, regardless of whether other
workflows can be designed to achieve the same outcome.
Therefore, the Court cannot say that Veripic is likely to
succeed on the merits of its Lanham Act claim with
respect to this statement, where it has not made a
threshold showing of literal falsity.
B. Statement Two
Veripic argues that Foray's statement "that its
ADAMS software complied with SWGIT guidelines that
state that the use of a hash function is the best way to
authenticate digital assets" is also literally [*14] false.
According to Veripic, hash functions do not allow a user
to authenticate, as SWGIT uses that term, but rather, hash
Page 4
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *10functions validate integrity. Section 13 of the SWGIT
guidelines, cited by Foray in support of the above
statement, is entitled "Best Practices for Maintaining the
Integrity of Digital Images and Digital Video." Siegel
Decl., Ex. 1. Veripic says this section has "nothing to do
with authenticating digital assets." Mot. at 10. On
Veripic's reading, SWGIT guidelines draw a bright line
distinction between "integrity" and "authenticity."
SWGIT guidelines state, "authenticity differs
significantly from integrity." Siegel Decl., Ex. 1.
Accordingly, "[i]ntegrity ensures that the information
presented is complete and unaltered from the time of
acquisition until its final disposition. For example, the
use of a hash function can verify that a copy of a digital
image file is identical to the file from which it was
copied, but it cannot demonstrate the veracity of the
scene depicted in the image." Id., Ex. 2. Authenticating
software, however, validates whether "a questioned
image or video is an accurate representation of the
original data by some defined criteria." Id. In response,
[*15] Foray argues that there are various industry
understandings of "authenticity" and "integrity," and that
integrity as Veripic defines it, is really a subset of
authenticity. In other words, there are at least two types
of authenticity: (1) acquisition authenticity (what Veripic
calls "integrity"), which ensures that the file itself has not
been changed since created or acquired; and (2) subject
matter authenticity, which ensures that the photo is what
it purports to be, the substance of the photo has not been
altered, and one can rely on the photo to draw real world
conclusions, such as distance and position.
Although Veripic argues that the distinction between
integrity and authenticity is inviolate, Foray presents
significant evidence that the terms are ambiguous,
overlapping, and sometimes interchangeable.
Notwithstanding their warning that the terms are distinct,
SWGIT's guidelines, read in their entirety, use those
terms loosely and interchangeably. For example, in
Section 13, SWGIT states "authentication is the process
of substantiating that the content is an accurate
representation of what it purports to be." Siegel Decl., Ex.
1. Yet in Section 14, SWGIT refers to authenticity, [*16]
stating, "[i]n the absence of a witness who can testify to
the origin of a questioned image or video, it may be
possible for an examiner to authenticate such data by
identifying its origin." Id. Ex. 2. In other words, Section
14 suggests that authentication requires confirmation of
the origin of data, which is precisely what Veripic says is
part of integrity validation, not authentication. In fact,
how would one know that data is an accurate
representation of what it purports to be (Veripic's
"authenticity") without necessarily confirming that the
data is complete and unaltered (Veripic's "integrity")
since its creation? Veripic's own promotional materials
define Foray's ADAMS as "acquisition authentication"
software, which "refers to knowing that a photo hasn't
changed starting from when it enters the computer
moving forward." Witzke Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. A, VeriPic FAQ
¶ 2 (emphasis in original).
Moreover, law enforcement professionals in the
industry use authenticity in a variety of ways, some of
which are consistent with what Foray claims its ADAMS
software actually does. According to Foray's expert Kerri
McClary, "authenticate" frequently refers to the various
steps taken when capturing, [*17] processing and
handling digital photographs to maintain their
"authenticity" in order to provide a foundation in court
that the digital photograph accurately portrays the scene.
3 McClary Decl., ¶ 5. Veripic's rebuttal declaration by
Richard McEvoy, Jr., does not actually dispute this. See
McEvoy Decl., ¶ 10 ("procedures for authentication of
digital evidence must encompass the entire lifespan of
that evidence . . . "). Authenticity in the legal evidentiary
context encompasses both acquisition and subject matter
authenticity, i.e., a witness may testify that a photo
accurately depicts the then-existing reality, and also by
implication, that the photo file has not been manipulated.
3 Veripic's evidentiary objection to the McClary
declaration, that it was unsigned, is
OVERRULED. Foray has properly validated the
signature. See Docket No. 47.
The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates
that at best, that term authenticity is ambiguous as used in
Foray's public statements. The SWGIT definition cited by
Veripic states that authentication is used "to discern if a
questioned image or video is an accurate representation
of the original data by some defined criteria." Siegel
Decl., Ex. 2. [*18] However, SWGIT Guidelines
nowhere define the criteria. Accordingly, Veripic has not
shown that there is a clear-cut definition of authenticity
from which Foray's statements clearly and
unambiguously deviate. Customers in the market for
"authenticating" software have multiple understandings
of what authenticating software is capable of doing and
what criteria to use to set authentication expectations.
Sellers and industry experts similarly have multiple
Page 5
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *14understandings. Given this ambiguity, the Court cannot
say that Veripic is likely to succeed on the merits of its
Lanham Act claim based on this statement.
C. Statement Three
The third Foray statement Veripic alleges is literally
false is that the "ADAMS software 'authenticates' digital
assets" and that therefore, Foray misleads consumer in
naming its software "Authenticated Digital Asset
Management System" (i.e., ADAMS). The view that its
software authenticates is "a foundational part of Foray's
markets and sales of its software." Mot. at 12. In support,
Veripic cites the signature block of Foray employee
emails, which describe Foray as offering "image
authentication solutions." Kwan Decl., Ex. E. This
signature block, noting that Foray [*19] offers
"solutions" plural, actually supports Foray's contention
that it uses authentication to refer to its suite of products
that involve not just crime scene photographs, but also
latent fingerprints, footwear impressions, blood spatter,
and other kinds of evidence that its software
authenticates, as industry consumers think of that term.
Moreover, the Court has already discussed why Veripic
has not demonstrated literal falsity by using SWGIT
guidelines as the standard from which Foray's claims of
authenticity deviate.
Veripic contends that Foray's definition of
authenticity is also inconsistent with the way the National
Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST") uses that
term. Foray advertises that, "[o]nly Foray Technologies
uses a SHA-256 secure hash algorithm, which is the
current NIST standard (NIST FIPTS 180-2 Secure Hash
Algorithm) for authenticating digital evidence." Kwan
Decl., Ex. A. NIST FIPTS 180-02 has four algorithms,
SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512. Id., Ex. D.
These algorithms, including SHA-256, "produce a
condensed representation" of a computer file called a
"message digest." Id. And the message digest for each
computer file is unique. Id. Thus, software [*20] can
deduce whether a file has been altered by comparing
message digests at different points in the life of a file.
And according to NIST, "[t]hese algorithms enable the
determination of a message's integrity." Id. Thus, Veripic
contends that nowhere does NIST FIPTS 180-2 state that
these algorithms have anything to do with authentication.
NIST does mention authentication in the very next
sentence, stating that message digests help generate
"authentication codes," which are part of confirming
"integrity." Kwan Decl, Ex. D. Thus, rather than resolve
the ambiguity, Veripic's reference to NIST only
exacerbates it. Foray points to evidence from an October
2, 2012, press release in which NIST announced the
winner of its five-year competition to find a new
cryptographic hash algorithm, where it wrote, "[h]ash
algorithms are use widely for cryptographic applications
that ensure the authenticity of digital documents, such as
digital signatures and message authentication codes."
Hennings Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A. Moreover, Veripic's
president, John Kwan, used a similar understanding of
authentication in a patent application, stating, "[t]his
invention relates to methods of data authentication and
more [*21] particularly, but not exclusively, provides a
system and method for creating, attaching, and using
[hash functions] of digital data to authenticate the claim."
Hennings Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B.
Veripic argues that Foray has for years used NIST
and SWGIT as reference points to frame the meaning of
"authentication" and it cannot now disclaim that use. As
an example, Veripic points to a presentation by Foray's
vice president of program management, David Witzke, to
the International Association for Identification, wherein
he states that SWGIT "provide[s] us with the guidelines
for the processing of anything digital." Wu Decl., ¶¶ 3-4,
Ex. W1. But later in that presentation, consistent with
Foray's position here, Witzke states, "[u]nder section 13
of the SWGIT guidelines we actually get into some of the
requirements for tracking and maintaining the
authentication of images." Id. In other words, Foray is
suggesting publicly that it understands SWGIT Section
13 to address acquisition authenticity.
Given the state of the evidence, Foray's use of
authenticity in its advertising is far from being literally
false, understood in context. Veripic relies on a hair
splitting, literal reading of NIST and [*22] SWGIT
statements that are themselves inconsistent or ambiguous.
Accordingly, Veripic has not offered evidence sufficient
to justify an injunction because it has not shown likely
success on the merits. Because Veripic is unlikely to be
able to show falsity, the Court need not address the
parties' additional arguments regarding materiality and
injury, except to say that Veripic's arguments here
likewise appear to be weak. Similarly, the Court need not
address Foray's argument that Veripic has unclean hands,
and that Veripic's authentication argument is actually an
undeclared trademark infringement action.
Page 6
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *182. Irreparable Harm
Plaintiffs must also establish a likelihood that they
will suffer irreparable harm absent injunctive relief.
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S.
7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). In
particular, plaintiffs must establish that "remedies
available at law, such as monetary damages, are
inadequate to compensate for that injury." Boomerangit,
Inc. v. ID Armor, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86382, at
*11 (N.D. Cal. June 21, 2012).
Veripic's theory of irreparable harm is that it will
lose prospective customers and business goodwill. While
goodwill and loss of prospective customers [*23] may
sometimes support a finding of irreparable harm, see
Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240
F.3d 832, 841 (9th Cir. 2001), Veripic has presented no
evidence of actual losses. At best, it presents a
speculative declaration from its company president in
which he states that six customers have told Veripic that
it was their understanding that "Foray authenticated
digital images in the same manner as Veripic." Kwan
Decl. ¶ 25. Moreover, Kwan states that he only recently
became aware of what Foray was telling customers to
deceive them into believing Foray authenticates digital
images. Id. ¶ 26. And "on information and belief," Kwan
believes that Veripic has lost several customers to whom
Foray previously sent an advertisement regarding Foray's
alleged compliance with SWGIT Section 13's
"requirement." Id. ¶ 27.
Veripic's arguments are unavailing for several
reasons. First, as to the urgency of an injunction, Veripic
was made aware, or should have been aware of, Foray's
alleged misrepresentations since at least June 1, 2011,
when the City of Seattle made available to Veripic the
Foray request for proposal response that contains the
offending statements. See Kwan Decl., ¶ [*24] 8, Ex. B.
Such a delay hardly bespeaks of the urgency typical in
successful preliminary injunction motions. See Oakland
Tribune, Inc. v. Chronicle Pub. Co., Inc. 762 F.2d 1374
(9th Cir. 1985) ("Plaintiff's long standing delay seeking a
preliminary injunction implies a lack of urgency and
irreparable harm."). Second, Veripic fails to present any
evidence tending to show that the loss of customers is
anything more than speculation or the result of legitimate
competition. In fact, most customers purchase one of
these competing software suites only after first reviewing
responses to requests for proposals, company
presentations and extensive research. Thus, any loss of
customers may be due to the fact that as between
ADAMS and DPL, customers with knowledge of the
differences between the products -- whether called
integrity validation or authentication -- prefer one brand
over the other.
Veripic has not shown that the harm it imagines is
more than speculative. Accordingly, it has not shown
irreparable harm sufficient to justify a preliminary
injunction.
3. Balance of Hardships
Veripic seeks a broad, five part injunction, wherein
Foray would be enjoined from (1) using the name
"Authenticated [*25] Digital Asset Management
System" or "ADAMS" or any other name that states or
implies that Foray's software authenticates digital assets;
(2) stating that Foray's software authenticates digital
assets; (3) representing that SWGIT guidelines endorse
the use of hash functions as the best way to authenticate
digital assets and that Foray's software complies with
SWGIT guidelines; and (4) stating that Foray's software
is the only software that complies with the SWGIT
"requirement" contained in the workflow described in
SWGIT Section 13. Veripic also requests that Foray post
in a prominent place on the landing site of its website that
it has been preliminarily enjoined from making the above
statements and linking a copy of the Court's order
granting the motion.
The scope of the relief sought goes far beyond
preserving the status quo before trial. Veripic effectively
proposes that Foray discontinue or change the entire
branding of its products. As Foray states, this would end
its business during the pendency of this case. Such drastic
relief cannot be supported only by speculation that future
customers may not purchase Veripic products.
4. Public Interest
Veripic has not made a sufficient showing [*26] that
the injunction it seeks is in the public interest. Veripic is
correct that there may be crucial legal implications of
having law enforcement erroneously rely on software that
does not do what it purports to do. Veripic contends that
ultimately, evidence may be thrown out of court because
it was not properly authenticated. Mot. at 21. This
concern, however, is overstated and unsupported. Here,
sophisticated customers invest significant time and
Page 7
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *22energy into purchasing this software, and also have
precise understandings of what they need that software to
be able to do in order to gather, store, and validate
evidence in a legal setting. Veripic presents no evidence
to the contrary. Therefore, Veripic has not stated a
compelling public interest in an injunction.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Veripic has not shown
that an injunction should issue. Accordingly, the Court
hereby DENIES Veripic's motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Court also DENIES as MOOT Foray's
motion for leave to file a declaration and deposition
testimony and DENIES as untimely Veripic's
administrative motion for leave to file supplemental
evidence. This order resolves Docket Nos. 22, 48 and 52.
IT IS SO [*27] ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2013
/s/ Susan Illston
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Page 8

2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14708, *26

Read More

Open Letter: Feather River Hospital 5974 Pentz Road Paradise, CA 95969

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/16/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons
Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
Related: Arson / Bacterial
======================================================================

Kevin Erich
President & CEO
Feather River Hospital

Dear Mr. Erich, 

I am writing this open letter in regards to my sons and events that occurred at your hospital.  It appears that despite all my efforts with hard won court orders in Contra Costa County I cannot get medical information over the phone in regards to my sons.  

A little over a year ago I was given instructions on getting my name as the Non-Custodial Parent listed which required me to drive all the way to Paradise at an expense of over $1,000 to take off work and drive to Paradise.  The court orders are clear as day - that I have full legal rights to my sons with specific orders in regards to medical care.  Somehow my son had major surgery and I wasn't called, informed but worse is I can't get information on that surgery.  

In my open letter to the Paradise School District I've expressed my concerns about events that occurred on May 24th 2013 where they used the police to deflect my efforts to get records from the CUME files.  The court orders that were once on file there were deleted by staff.  In 2009 Judge McNellis who told the mother that the proper venue for custody is Contra Costa and removed them from the restraining orders filed in August 2009.  

My attorney during that hearing was Dax Craven who is married to the Daughter of James Greenan who is the head of the Contra Costa Bar  where I posted an open letter about the bars activities.  That letter alleges that the Bar has refused this resident services which is very true but this same bar is aware that my attorney was beaten in Walnut Creek and that my attorneys offices were burned down in Walnut Creek in 2001.  Where that leads is numerous other unsolved arson cases in Contra Costa County of which is my 2004 Truck fire that leads to Gregg's Muffler story.  

Last year I did all the steps to gain access to the medical files and doctors.  Now I've got to file court papers?  

Meet me in Court Tomorrow in Oroville and get the copies of the court orders.  i am the father that can't seem to get the paperwork right on.  I have the legal right be make all the informed decisions regarding my sons health care. I filed all the required forms.  I've had enough of hearing Hippa this and Hippa that as each trip exhausts my funds and I'm exhausted with all these trips.     

You've got to the get this right immediately plus not force me to take 200 mile trips to fix your mistakes.  I get the Child Support Bill just fine and even get arrested for it - so what's so hard about allowing the father to speak to his doctors.  

Regards, 

Pete Bennett 

Updating pending: 06-16-2013 at 5PM

Read More

Greggs Muffler - 3329 Mt Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA 94549

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/13/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons
Arson Murder - Magalia / Paradise CA
Related: Arson / Arson
======================================================================

Greg Coons is a member of Alamo 1st Ward who operates Greggs Muffler.  In 2004 I took my F-250 truck for repairs on the day my truck caught on fire.  

Mr. Coons assisted with the repair of my truck where the undercarriage was singed with some burnt wires from an event where my engine was on fire.  The exact description from the CHP motorcycle officer was flames were shooting back over 100 feet.  His mechanic (Mormon) said he was right behind me (4 miles south in the middle of the day- yeah right) both knew this man. 

For nearly 10 years I've heard that something was going to be done and when my car was totaled in July 20th 2011 Lafayette CA Police refused to begin an investigation.  They are probably facing a RICO investigation by now as quite frankly when one alleges a retired San Francisco Police Officer as the suspect when would expect 

Greg's sons are friends with Nate and the Coons family used to babysit our sons.  In Spring 2012 I went back to Greg asking for the name of the mechanic.  I've asked former Bishop Clark many time via email and even informed in person that someone blew up my truck and Greg was somehow connected.  

Paul I've asked for the claim forms as Nate was in a good place but today he's nowhere.  It's really ashes to ashes dust to dust and lights out for good.  

Nate Greenan  Obit: Nathaniel James Greenan April 18th 2012

Read More

Open Letter to Paradise Unified School District - what the parents and teachers need to know about the risks

Open Letter To Paradise Unified School District

On May 24th I attempted to take my sons to get medical care that was court ordered on Dec 6th 2007, orders that were put in place to protect my sons in regards to haphazard medical care.  In June 2011 my sons arrived after 24 month gap in visitation and one son requested medical care for Acid Reflux.  Those are the same court orders in the altered CUME Files which I'm sure other parents don't have to endure.  

Even more upsetting was learning my son was in the Hospital then recovering from major surgery that your staff deliberately concealed.  

The long overdue Independent Medical Exam (IME) was scheduled on July 6th 2011, on July 5th the mother raced down to Walnut Creek and intercepted that exam.  One son left and the other stayed then on July 7th 2011 I was arrested.  My laptop was breached while I was in custody and I've filed claims with Hillside Covenant Church about activities related to my sons.  I have two separate incidents and that resulted in a total wreck.  It was an attempted murder and my sons know parts of what happened.  

The net effect of that accident cost me a software contract worth $200,000 with PG&E.  

On June 13th 2013 a Arson Murder occurred on Skyway but near me and my story which you can find on this blog are other Arson Murders.  No one quite gets the risk and I'm here to tell you it's real.  When my letter reaches another agency you will find out the facts, the risks and the issues.  The PG&E Gas Transmission System was compromised - why is so important - think of the terrorist value of this date in the wrong hands and most US programmers fear the impact of the Tech Visas have on National Security.  

In 2002 I began researching a Visa known as the H1b or Tech Visa which was derived from litigation (Charter v Authentic Technologies) I appeared on PBS and on CNN/Lou Dobbs Tonight many times beginning in 2002.  In 2009 Lou Dobbs was forced off the air when bullets hit his home. 

Lou Dobbs: Gunshots Fired At Me, My Wife, My House

Last month there was a Limo Fire on the San Mateo Bridge - horrific event but few know of my research on Visas - I built a database of companies using the Visas - all of these nurses were here on the H1b Visa.  There was another Limo Fire in Walnut Creek on June 2nd, but there are several more in the area.  Arson is one of the tactics used. 

While your teachers interfere with my parental rights and clearly have taken control of my sons they are in danger from events near me.  I won't mince words - they almost killed my sons in 2004 with a hit and run accident where we watched the other plow into the wall at 70 or better. We don't think he survived.  

If you're willing to ignore events then so be it but my sons are at risk while this larger story unfolds and that risk means other students are at risk.  Personally I think you're being extremely errant as this blog contains enough information with cross references to real cases.  

Think it over - I am just trying to spend time with my sons and take them to a doctor which my legal right.  Instead you call the Paradise Police who told me on Thursday June 11th that three bodies of a clear arson murder doesn't warrant a welfare check.  

Step out of the way as you're blindness is drawing you into a story far bigger than your little tow and while you're so busy screwing up my life you've wrecked my sons future e.g. college, medical care and emotional wel

Regards, 

Pete Bennett 
510-460-5641

 

Read More

Civil Rights Violations

Sent to the Paradise Town Council and the Paradise Unified School District.  

Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.

The most common legal application of the term civil rights involves the rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens and residents by legislation and by the Constitution. Civil rights protected by the Constitution include Freedom of Speech and freedom from certain types of discrimination.

Not all types of discrimination are unlawful, and most of an individual's personal choices are protected by the freedoms to choose personal associates; to express himself or herself; and to preserve personal privacy. Civil rights legislation comes into play when the practice of personal preferences and prejudices of an individual, a business entity, or a government interferes with the protected rights of others. The various civil rights laws have made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin. Discrimination that interferes with voting rights and equality of opportunity in education, employment, and housing is unlawful.

The term Privileges and Immunities is related to civil rights. Privileges and immunities encompass all rights of individuals that relate to people, places, and real and Personal Property. Privileges include all of the legal benefits of living in the United States, such as the freedom to sell land, draft a will, or obtain a Divorce. Immunities are the protections afforded by law that prevent the government or other people from hindering another's enjoyment of his or her life, such as the right to be free from illegalsearches and seizures and the freedom to practice religion without government persecution. The Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The clause is designed to prevent each state from discriminating against

the people in other states in favor of its own citizens.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, delineates specific rights that are reserved for U.S. citizens and residents. No state can remove or abridge rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in dred scott v. sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691, that the Constitution did not apply to African Americans because they were not citizens when the Constitution was written. After the Civil War, therefore, new laws were necessary for the purpose of extending civil liberties to the former slaves.

In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was enacted to make Slavery and other forms of Involuntary Servitudeunlawful. In addition, Congress was given the power to enact laws that were necessary to enforce this new amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides that every individual who is born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen and ensures that a state may not deprive a citizen or resident of his or her civil rights, including Due Process of Law andEqual Protection of the laws. Congress is also empowered to enact laws for the enforcement of these rights.

The Origin of Federal Civil Rights Laws

During the period immediately following the Civil War, civil rights legislation was originally enacted by Congress, based upon its power under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to pass laws to enforce these rights. The first two of these laws were based upon the civil rights act of 1866 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1982), which had preceded the Fourteenth Amendment.

The first civil rights law guaranteed equal rights under the law for all people who lived within the jurisdiction of the United States. The second guaranteed each citizen an equal right to own, inherit, rent, purchase, and sell real property as well as personal property. The third original civil rights law, the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 (17 Stat. 13), provided citizens with the right to bring a civil action for a violation of protected rights. The fourth law made violation of such rights a criminal offense.

Subsequent Legislation

Although these initial laws purported to guarantee the civil rights of all citizens, including African Americans and other minorities,

they were effectively negated for most African-Americans in the late nineteenth century by the passage of Jim Crow Laws, orBlack Codes, in the South. These laws made it illegal for African-Americans to use the same public facilities as whites, restricted their travel, impeded their ability to vote, forbade interracial marriage, and generally relegated them to a legally inferior position.

In the 1896 landmark case plessy v. ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Jim Crow law that required the Segregation, or separation, of the races on railroad cars. The Court held that the Louisiana law in question was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as long as the facilities that were provided for each race were "separate but equal." This separate-but-equal doctrine was used to support other segregation laws applying to public schools and public facilities.

No significant civil rights legislation was enacted until many decades later, when the Commission on Civil Rights was established by Congress in the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1975) to monitor and collect facts regarding race relations for consideration by Congress and the president. Congress subsequently passed the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1971). The statute guarantees that qualified voters have the right to register to vote in any state and that they have the right to sue any person who prevents them from doing so. Voters possess this right to sue regardless of whether the individual who so prevents them is a state official or merely an individual who acting as one.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000a et seq.) is the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the history of the United States. It contains provisions for parity in the use and enjoyment of public accommodations, facilities, and education, as well as federally assisted programs and employment. Title VII of that act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on an employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is regarded as the most inclusive source of employment rights. All employers who have at least 15 employees, including state and local governments and labor unions, are subject to its provisions, but it does not apply to the federal government, American Indian tribes, clubs, or religious organizations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (25 U.S.C.A. § 1301 et seq.) proscribes discrimination in the sale and rental of most U.S. housing. It also prohibits discrimination in financing arrangements and extends to agents, brokers, and owners. Both the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts establish the right of an injured party to sue and to obtain damages from any individual who illegally infringes with a person's civil rights, conspires to deprive others of their civil rights, or abuses either government authority or public office to accomplish such unlawful acts.

In the area of education, a significant civil rights milestone was achieved in 1954 with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision inbrown v. board of education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873. In Brown, the justices unanimously rejected the separate-but-equal doctrine that it had upheld in Plessy. They found that segregating black and white children in different public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Segregation, the Court held, effectively discriminates against African-American children by promoting in them a sense of inferiority that limits their opportunities in life. The Court also required that school districts desegregate "with all deliberate speed." Integration, or desegregation, of public schools has been a divisive issue ever since. In particular, arguments arise over the practice of busing students a distance to school, a method that has been used, often by court order, to create a better racial balance.

The issue of segregation continues to cause strife. In 2002, Senate Majority Leader trent lott (R.-Miss.) suggested during comments at the 100th birthday party of retired Senator strom thurmond that he was proud that the state of Mississippi had supported Thurmond in a presidential bid in 1948. Thurmond had run on the so-called "Dixiecrat" platform that advocated segregation. The comments caused a storm of criticism directed at Lott, and he resigned as senate majority leader in December 2002.

In employment, Common Law permits an employer or Labor Union to discriminate for a valid reason in its relations with employees, unless otherwise provided by federal or state statute. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) initially restrained discrimination against employees or job applicants who engage in union activities. Subsequently, the act has been extended through various amendments to prohibit other forms of discrimination, including race and Sex Discrimination. In 1963, Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 206), which requires that men and women be paid the same wages when they do substantially similar work. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the initial forum for claims of illegal employment discrimination. It also publishes advisory guidelines that explain or define the law. Many states have agencies or Human Rights commissions that are similar to the EEOC.

The 1980s and Beyond

One result of civil rights legislation is Affirmative Action, which is the effort to enforce race and sex classifications when necessary to correct past discriminatory patterns. The ordering of affirmative action requires employers or labor unions to make concerted efforts to hire minorities who traditionally have been discouraged from seeking employment with them. The basis for affirmative action is that if such efforts are not made, unlawful discrimination will be perpetuated.

Affirmative action and other attempts to end discrimination raise new questions. For example, have efforts to help minorities and women begun to infringe on the rights of individuals outside of those groups, such as white men? Some argue that affirmative action results in reverse discrimination, which is prejudice or bias practiced against a particular person or class of people in order to remedy a pattern of past discrimination against another individual or group of individuals.

Much of the attention on the constitutionality of affirmative action programs has focused upon the federal courts of appeals. The most heated controversy has centered on affirmative action programs in higher education. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals inHopwood v. Texas,78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) held that a program at the University of Texas School of Law granting preferences to minorities in admissions decisions was unconstitutional. This case stirred a national debate, and several commentators noted that the percentage of minorities who were admitted to the school dropped markedly after the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the decision to stand when it denied certioari.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified some of the confusion experienced by the lower federal courts with respect to affirmative action programs in higher education. In Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S.___, 123 S. Ct. 2325, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2003), the Court upheld a practice by the law school at the University of Michigan that considered race one of the factors the school considered when admitting students. The ruling upheld the decision in board of regents of the university of california v. bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978), a controversial decision that had likewise allowed schools to consider race as a factor in admissions. In a companion case to Grutter, however the Court limited the scope of affirmative action programs of universities when it struck down Michigan's undergraduate admissions policies. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. ___, 123 S. Ct. 2411, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2003). Unlike the law school's admissions policies at Michigan, the undergraduate admissions department added a certain number of "points" to the application of a racial minority. Because the university added these points automatically without consideration of the individual applicant, the Court held that this policy could not pass constitutional muster.

After President ronald reagan appointed three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court during his two presidential terms between 1981 and 1989, the Court proceeded to render more conservative opinions regarding civil rights. For example, in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 109 S. Ct. 2363, 105 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1989), it addressed the issue of discrimination in the private sector and held that section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 barred only racial discrimination in hiring, and thus not racial harassment while on the job. Minority-rights groups were disappointed by the ruling and saw it as part of a general trend toward making civil rights violations more difficult to prove. However, Justice anthony m. kennedy, who wrote the Court's opinion, stated, "Neither our words nor our decisions should be interpreted as signaling one inch of retreat from Congress's policy to forbid discrimination in the private, as well as the public, sphere."

Less controversial have been developments in the area of civil rights for handicapped people. In 1990, President george h. w. bush signed into law the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 [codified in scattered sections of 42, 29, 47 U.S.C.A.] [effective 1992]), which was quickly hailed as the most significant civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled persons in employment, public accommodations, transportation, and Telecommunications. Referred to as the bill of rights for physically and mentally disabled citizens—who were estimated to number 43 million at the time of the act's passage—the act supersedes previous state and local laws and extends protection to any person with a physical or mental impairment that "substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual."

The act includes many features that are intended to improve living conditions for those with disabilities. For example, employers, providers of public transportation, and private businesses with public accommodation (such as theaters, restaurants, hotels, and banks) must make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled persons. Often such accommodations must include wheelchair access. Similarly, all commuter and intercity trains are required to have at least one car that is handicapped-accessible, and telephone companies must provide relay operators for hearing-impaired individuals who use special telecommunications devices.

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071 [codified in scattered sections of 42, 29, 2 U.S.C.A.]) marked another important step in civil rights legislation. The act repudiated several U.S. Supreme Court decisions on civil rights; granted women and disabled persons the right to recover money damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and granted congressional employees the protection of Title VII. Among the high court's decisions that were overturned by the 1991 act wasPatterson. Section 101 of the act states that employees may sue for damages experienced through racial discrimination in hiring, promotion, dismissal, and all other terms of employment. The changes in Title VII employee-discrimination cases entitle plaintiffs to jury trials and allow them to recover damages in addition to back pay.

Although many minority groups have made rapid advances toward recognition of their civil rights, one group that continues to struggle is the homosexual community. Similar to ethnic and racial minorities, individuals who identify themselves as homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual have long been subject to disparate treatment from the majority. Although Gay and Lesbian Rights groups have made advances toward changing perceptions in society, challenges in the courts have been only marginally successful.

Gay and lesbian rights group claimed a victory in 1996 with the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620, 134 L. Ed. 2d 855 (1996). In that case, a constitutional amendment in the state of Colorado prohibited governmental units from passing any statute, regulation, or ordinance purporting to protect the rights of homosexuals or bisexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the amendment violated the Equal Protection Clause because it explicitly denies a single group protection under the law.

Although Romer represented one of the first major victories for gay and lesbian groups, other decisions have been less favorable. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 120 S. Ct. 2446, 147 L. Ed. 2d 554 (2000), the Court held that the Boy Scouts could properly exclude gay boys from their organization based upon the principle of freedom of association. Due in large part to their limited success in the courts and legislatures, gay and lesbian advocates have focused much of their attention on changing societal perceptions of homosexual, bisexuals, and other similar minority groups.

Another issue that has arisen in the courts with respect to civil rights is the limitations placed upon Section 1983 actions against governmental officials for violations of constitutional rights. For instance, in Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 117 S. Ct. 12382, 137 L. Ed. 2d 626 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that a plaintiff cannot recover in an action under section 1983 under a theory of repondeat superior. The plaintiff in the case was injured when a police officer forced her to the ground after a chase. The officer had been hired by his great-uncle, a county sheriff, despite the fact that he had had a number of criminal convictions. The plaintiff claimed that the sheriff and the county had shown a reckless indifference toward her constitutional rights through their hiring practices. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that a plaintiff in a Section 1983 action must prove that a governmental unit, through deliberate conduct, was a moving force behind the alleged injury.

Prisoners' Rights

Lawsuits brought by prisoners to recover damages for alleged violations of their civil rights have caused problems in American legal systems. Many of these cases have involved alleged violations by prisons or prison officials against inmates. Although many of these claims have no valid legal basis, some do, so courts must determine, among the thousands of cases that are filed each year, which ones have merit. In response to these claims, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1932 (2003), which requires prisoners to pay filing fees and restricts the amount of money damages that prisoners can recover.

Prisoners have prevailed on a variety of claims, notwithstanding limitations placed upon their court actions. For example, inCrawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759 (1998), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision that had imposed a higher Burden of Persuasion on inmate claims. Similarly, prisoners are periodically successful in claims that prison officials have deprived them of constitutional rights, including due process of law.

However, the majority of claims by inmates fail. For instance, in Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 122 S. Ct. 515, 151 L. Ed. 2d 456 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff held in a halfway house that was operated by a private corporation under a contract with the federal government could not sue the corporation. The plaintiff had sought to bring the case under the rule in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971) (called a Bivens action), which allows for suits against federal officials who have violated the civil rights of plaintiffs. The Court in Malesko held that Bivens actions do not apply the to acts of government agencies or business entities and ruled against the plaintiff.

Further readings

Abraham, Henry J., and Barbara A. Perry. 2003. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States.Lawrence: Univ. Press of Kansas.

Hepple, Bob, and Erika M. Szyszczak, eds. 1992. Discrimination: the Limits of Law. New York: Mansell.

Lewis, Harold S. Jr., and Elizabeth J. Norman. 2001. Civil Rights Law and Practice. St. Paul, Minn.: West.

Rutland, George H., ed. 2001. Civil Rights in America. Huntington, N.Y.: Nova Science Publishers.

Shull, Steven H. 1999. American Civil Rights Policy from Truman to Clinton: the Role of Presidential Leadership. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Read More

Paradise Police refuses to do Welfare Check June 14th 2013

By PETE BENNETT - Contra Costa Watch EMAIL
Phone: 510-460-5641
Posted: 06/13/2013

Reposted to Protect My Sons
Civil Rights Violations
Related: Arson / Arson
======================================================================

Upon learning of the bodies being found on upper ridge I started making calls and started sending emails to the Paradise Town Council and Paradise Unified School district.  

Last week they told me that three murders near my sons didn't meet the test.  So for three days I called asking for help and couldn't verify anything as I don't know anyone in the area and the teachers are non-responsive.  

I am sending links about what is going on to these addresses as I've had enough BS from local law enforcement.  The State Police arrived when State Senator Mark DeSaulnier called them over my July 20th, 2011 car accident. When I get the mapping part done you will see what I already know. 

The Paradise Police Department deliberately misinterpreted court orders from Contra Costa County.  My attempts to reach my sons circumvented. During July 2011 my laptop was breached and hacked by members of Hillside Covenant Church.  On that laptop was the entire PG&E infrastructure, GPS, and map coordinates of the Gas Transmission System. 

You be the judge - do you want persons hacking programmers laptops that could essentially disable critical infrastructure - The Limo Fire in San Mateo was a perfect example of targeting you can get.  


san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov
sacramento@ic.fbi.gov 

Read More