Legal procedure: service on foreign defendant via Twitter OK'd by Federal court

A federal magistrate judge in San Francisco has approved service of a lawsuit via Twitter on an overseas Kuwaiti national accused of helping fund ISIS.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler allowed the Twitter service in a suit by the nonprofit St. Francis Assisi . . .
Side note: usually rules of service are governed by the rules in which court the suit is filed -- for example, a suit in Michigan's Circuit Court would be governed by the Michigan Court Rules. In this case, it's in federal court, so it is governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

If a plaintiff needs to serve a defendant notice of a suit, the rules tell the plaintiff how to do that properly. Typically, the rules will allow for service on a defendant's attorney, or at their address via certified mail, or through a process server. If the plaintiff can't serve the defendant in a typical fashion, he or she must request that the court allow for an alternative service method. 

Beeler said service via Twitter is not barred by any international agreement with Kuwait, and it is reasonably calculate to give notice. “Al-Ajmi has a large following on Twitter,” Beeler wrote, “and has used the social-media platform to fundraise large sums of money for terrorist organizations by providing bank-account numbers to make donations.” His Twitter account is active and he continues to use it, she added.

Article here (via aba journal). 

Federal Appeals Court rules gun legislation must be held to "strict scrutiny" standard (instead of rational-basis)

For the first time, a federal appeals court has held that a state’s ban on “assault” long guns and “high-capacity” magazines must be held to the highest level of judicial scrutiny. In a 2–1 decision, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) held that Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act must be evaluated under the same stringent standard that courts routinely use to strike down race-based governmental discrimination and categorical bans on speech, since, like them, the law seeks to restrict a core constitutional freedom.

Read more at this link

 (via National Review). 

Just so you know: the difference between rational basis review and strict scrutiny is pretty big. Rational basis means that if a court hears a case that is trying to determine the constitutionality of a law, and the court itself can devise a reason why it might be constitutional, then the court can allow that law to then be constitutional * (this is my explanation of the more complete, wordier version that you can read here on Wiki).

Strict scrutiny, by contrast, is the highest (hence using the word strict, and scrutiny) level of review for cases that are about constitutional issues. When a case is touching on fundamental rights, that are part of the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution, they will be presumed to have violated the Constitution unless it can be 1) justified by a compelling governmental interest, and 2) it is narrowly tailored, and 3) it is also the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. Laws often (not surprisingly) fail this test. (again, read the Wiki outline of SS here).

** RB review: "if the court can merely hypothesize a "legitimate" interest served by the challenged action, it will withstand rational basis review"

 

 

Insane Clown Posse fans (aka "Juggaloes") have standing to sue US Department of Justice

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently released a published opinion holding that the plaintiffs, four self-described "Juggalos" and two members of the band Insane Clown Posse, had standing for their claims against the US Department of Justice and the FBI that they suffered violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights.

Article here (via Speaker law firm blog).

This case arose out of a Congressional report for the National Gang Intelligence Center. Back in 2001, the report determined that Juggaloes are in fact, members of a gang, although loosely organized. In return, some Juggaloes filed suit, claiming that this had a chilling effect on their First Amendment rights to association.

Cyber-squatting case in Grand Rapids: Defendant denies "nefarious intent"

Joe Bliss, who has been accused of cyber-squatting Grand Rapids businessman and triathlete Ryan Leestma, acknowledges he set up a website using his former boss' name.

The man admitted posting news stories about Leestma and sharing his Facebook posts, originally published on others' pages.

But a "nefarious intent?" No, he said.

Article here (via mlive).

2 students sue GVSU over alleged cheating and discrimination

Two students are suing Grand Valley State University, saying they were falsely convicted of academic dishonesty and discriminated against by a professor.

The Grand Rapids Press reports that Erin Jurek and Ashley Short were found guilty of academic dishonesty in the summer of 2013 for allegedly using an unapproved Internet message board and collaborating on a take-home exam for a math class.

Article here. And more fully reported on  here. 

Judge rules against Michigan retailer over critical online review

Mr. and Mrs. Palmer posted an online review at RipoffReport . com when the product Mr. Palmer ordered for his wife never arrived. But then they were threatened by the Michigan manufacturer.

 From the Article:

Michigan-based KlearGear.com told the Palmers in 2012 that they had 72 hours to remove the negative review or pay $3,500 because they violated a “non-disparagement clause” in its terms of use with customers, the lawsuit said.

The couple refused, saying the clause was not in effect when the items were purchased and the terms violated the First Amendment. They also note RipoffReport.com has a policy of not removing posted reviews.

 The retailer then reported the Palmers to a credit reporting agency for their "failure to pay" which resulted in credit difficulties for the couple.

Judge Benson, in his order, said the retailer is liable to the Palmers for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

More sentencing to come in Holland "Latin Kings" case

The federal prosecution has turned Latin Kings against each other. As part of plea deals, defendants are required to provide truthful testimony against others standing trial, which would include Eric Ruibal, who founded the Holland Latin Kings two decades ago.

Arturo DeLeon will be sentenced later this week, article here. 

Federal Court judge says he decided wrong in Indiana voter ID law

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner now says that he got it wrong in his 2007 opinion upholding Indiana's voter I.D. law.  The decision was affirmed in 2008 by the U.S. Supreme Court in an opinion authored by Justice John Paul Stevens. However, Stevens told the Wall Street Journal last week that he stands by his decision, which he called "state-specific and record-specific," despite his concerns with the proliferation of voter I.D. laws
Article here.