Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned on Saturday that if provinces move too quickly to reopen their economies, a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic could send Canada "back into confinement this summer." Trudeau, who represents a Montreal, Quebec parliamentary riding, told reporters in a daily briefing that he is concerned about the virus' spread in that province, the country's epicenter. Although health officials have pointed to a flattening rate of daily cases in many provinces, Trudeau said Canada was "not in the recovery phase yet."

The FBI coordinated very closely with the Obama White House on the investigation of Michael Flynn, while the Obama Justice Department was asleep at the switch. That is among the most revealing takeaways from Thursday’s decision by Attorney General Bill Barr to pull the plug on the prosecution of Flynn, who fleetingly served as President Trump’s first National Security Advisor. Flynn had been seeking to withdraw his guilty plea to a false-statements charge brought in late 2017 by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.While working on the Trump transition team in December 2016, Flynn spoke with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in conversations that were intercepted by our government (because Russian-government operatives, such as Kislyak, are routinely monitored by the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies). Among the topics Flynn and Kislyak discussed was the imposition of sanctions against Russia, which President Obama had just announced.That these conversations took place has been known for over three years -- ever since a still-unidentified government official leaked that classified information to the Washington Post. For almost as long, it has been known that the FBI became aware of the Flynn–Kislyak discussions very shortly after they happened. What was not known until this week was that then–acting attorney general Yates was out of the loop. She found out about the discussions nearly a week afterwards -- from President Obama, of all people.This was at a White House pow-wow on January 5, 2017. That was the day when the chiefs of key intelligence agencies briefed top Obama White House officials on their assessment of Russia’s meddling in the campaign. After the main briefing, the president asked Yates and FBI director James Comey to stick around to meet with him, along with Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Yates was taken aback when Obama explained that he had “learned of the information about Flynn” and his conversation with Kislyak. She was startled because, she later told investigators, she “had no idea what the president was talking about.”Yates had to figure things out by listening to the exchanges between President Obama and FBI director Comey. The latter was not only fully up to speed, he was even prepared to suggest a potential crime -- a violation of the moribund Logan Act -- that might fit the facts.According to an FBI report, which was appended (as Exhibit 4) to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the Flynn case, Yates later said she was “so surprised by the information she was hearing that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time.”I’ll bet.That Yates was in the dark was not the FBI’s fault. Two days earlier, the bureau’s then–deputy director, Andrew McCabe, had briefed Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, the head of DOJ’s National Security Division, about the Flynn–Kislyak discussions. Evidently not appreciating what the FBI regarded as the urgency of the matter, McCord did not pass the information along to the acting AG before her White House meeting.Ms. Yates’s astonishment at how well-informed the bureau was keeping the president calls for revisiting something to which I’ve called attention before. It now seems even more significant.When General Flynn was forced to resign as national-security adviser after just three weeks on the job, the New York Times did its customary deep dive, in which seven of its best reporters pressed their well-placed sources for details. It was a remarkable report, which recounted -- as if it were totally matter-of-fact -- that Flynn’s communications with Kislyak had been investigated by the FBI in real-time consultation with President Obama’s aides. For example (my italics):> Obama advisers heard separately from the F.B.I. about Mr. Flynn’s conversation with Mr. Kislyak, whose calls were routinely monitored by American intelligence agencies that track Russian diplomats. The Obama advisers grew suspicious that perhaps there had been a secret deal between the incoming [Trump] team and Moscow, which could violate the rarely enforced, two-century-old Logan Act barring private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers in disputes with the United States.Interesting. The FBI tells Obama “advisers” about Flynn’s discussions with Kislyak. Between this and their surprise that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin did not retaliate when Obama imposed sanctions, the Obama “advisers” dream up a non-existent pact between Trump and the Kremlin -- collusion! And they’re already thinking about nailing Flynn on the Logan Act . . . an obsolete, unconstitutional vestige of the President John Adams administration that has never, ever been prosecuted in the history of the Justice Department (the last case appears to have been in 1852; DOJ was established 18 years later).Who came up with that? Well, Ms. McCord (whose interview is Exhibit 3 in DOJ’s Flynn dismissal motion) later told investigators that the Logan Act flyer originated in the office of Obama’s director of national intelligence, James Clapper -- specifically proposed by ODNI’s general counsel, Bob Litt. Obviously, by January 5, Comey was already discussing it with Obama.Let’s look at some more of that Times report on Flynn’s downfall. For the legal analysis of Flynn’s exchanges with Kislyak, the president’s aides consulted the FBI, not DOJ:> The Obama officials asked the F.B.I. if a quid pro quo had been discussed on the call, and the answer came back no, according to one of the officials, who like others asked not to be named discussing delicate communications. The topic of sanctions came up, they were told, but there was no deal.So no misconduct. To the contrary, the incoming national-security adviser asked a Russian counterpart to discourage his government from escalating tensions, which is what we would want any American diplomat to do. “There was no deal.” Sanctions were merely mentioned, as one would expect since they’d just been imposed, but Flynn made no agreement to accommodate the Kremlin in any way.But see, those are the actual facts. Who cares what actually happened? What matters, it turns out, is what “Obama advisers” and their FBI co-creators could imagine it into: There must be Trump collusion with Russia because we’ve concluded Putin would otherwise have retaliated.This was nothing new for the FBI. Remember, at that point, they’re already in the FISA court (and at that time, were about to go back for a renewal warrant) telling the judges they suspect members of Donald Trump’s campaign are in a “conspiracy of cooperation” with the Putin regime. Their proof of that? The Steele dossier -- uncorroborated Democratic-party- and Clinton-campaign-sponsored propaganda that they already have immense reason to know is claptrap.Meanwhile, with Yates at the helm, the Justice Department had major reservations about the FISA warrants’ reliance on the Steele dossier, but swallowed hard and went along with it. The Justice Department had major reservations about the Logan Act as a predicate for investigating Flynn, but Yates was too startled to speak up at the White House meeting. The Justice Department wanted Comey to alert the Trump White House about the Flynn–Kislyak discussions, but the FBI refused . . . and Yates did nothing. By the time, after days of temporizing, she finally decided to put her foot down, Comey told her he had already dispatched agents to do an unauthorized ambush interview of Flynn. Yates was “dumbfounded,” McCord recalled.The Justice Department appears to have spent much of its time “flabbergasted,” to quote McCabe again. But in the end, it would always go with the collusion flow. Meanwhile, empowered and emboldened, the FBI ran rings around its nominal superiors.So what did President Obama make of all this theorizing from the FBI and his “advisers”? Well, intriguingly, as she was leaving her office for the last time, Obama’s top adviser, Susan Rice, decided that her last official act, moments after Trump was inaugurated, would be to craft -- 15 days after the fact -- an email memorializing Obama’s directive at the January 5 meeting:> President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming [Trump] team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.Hmm, you mean a reason like “Trump and his minions just might be colluding with the Kremlin”?You’d almost think the Obama White House and its intelligence apparatus was weaving a political narrative out of . . . nothing.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant is a divorced spouse who holds an interest in property that Plaintiff obtained a judgment lien against the other spouse’s interest. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s interest was subordinate to Plaintiff’s interest. The trial court held that Defendant’s interest vested upon the entry of the judgment of divorce and that Plaintiff could execute only against the other spouse’s interest.

(United States Supreme Court) - Upheld an Indiana law relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers. The Seventh Circuit had struck down the law, which altered the manner in which abortion providers may dispose of fetal remains; for instance, the law prevents incineration of fetal remains along with surgical byproducts. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a per curiam decision that the law passes rational basis review. Only two justices dissented.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

1 ¾ cups + 2 tablespoons gluten free oat flour 1 teaspoon baking powder ½ teaspoon baking soda ¼ teaspoon salt 1 cup + 2 tablespoons mashed, very ripe bananas (about 3 medium bananas) ¼ cup melted coconut oil ¼ cup pure maple syrup 1 flax egg (1 tablespoon golden ground flaxseed + 3 tablespoons water, whisk together, set for 15 mins) 1 teaspoon pure vanilla extract 1 cup add-ins of your choice – walnuts, chocolate chips, chopped dried fruit

via Criticidades https://ift.tt/1RabwUr

This note examines the published data protection impact assessment (DPIA) released by NHSX in relation to their contact tracing/proximity tracing app. It highlights a range of significant issues which leave the app falling short of data protection legislation. It does this in order so that these issues can be remedied before the next DPIA is published.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23091359

Nail biting action comes to All Phones Arena on Friday May 20 and Saturday May 21 with US stuntman and action sports champion Travis Pastrana leading a star-studded team for the 10th anniversary Nitro Circus Tour.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that the federal government did not properly calculate the retirement annuity of a retired federal employee. The retiree, who had served in both the military and civilian sectors of the U.S. government, argued that he was entitled to civilian service credit for additional discrete time periods of his government service. On his petition for review of a Merit Systems Protection Board decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed conviction. Remanded for sentencing. Defendant was convicted of several crimes including kidnapping with intent to commit a sex offense. The trial court found certain sentence enhancement applied. The appeals court affirmed the judgment, but found several sentencing errors.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an individual could obtain judicial review of the federal government's denial of his petition under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which authorizes individuals to petition for a determination of whether they must provide information requested by a government agency. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the district court, in a case involving information collected by the Patent and Trademark Office.

(California Court of Appeal) - Following an incident in which plaintiff-deputy allegedly used excessive force, plaintiff was demoted. Judgment of the trial court finding that the hearing officer, who upheld the demotion for use of excessive force, had not exercised independent judgment is reversed, where: 1) under the Memorandum of Understanding, the hearing officer was required to exercise independent judgment not only with respect to whether there were grounds for discipline, but also with respect to the nature of the discipline; and 2) the hearing officer's failure to use independent judgment would not have changed the outcome and was therefore not prejudicial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a defendant was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, because the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice meant no one had prevailed here. Affirmed the denial of fees.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court judgment to the plaintiffs following a bench trail in an action under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act because the plaintiffs were required to assume the unpaid withdrawal liability of their predecessor to a multiemployer pension plan, a constructive notice standard applied and a reasonable purchaser would have been aware of the liability.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the final judgment of the US Court of International Trade granting a Canadian company's motion for summary judgment in a suit where they argued that the screws they were importing to the US were properly classified as self-tapping screws under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a contracts action arising from a dispute over the auction sale of a syndicated loan, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the lack of a written sales agreement and plaintiffs' failure to submit a timely cash deposit were not conditions precedent to the formation of the parties' contract and do not render their agreement unenforceable.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the prevailing wage law applied here because the contractors (belt sorters at county recycling facilities) were engaged in public work. On a separate issue, addressed the statutory remedy for improperly shortening their meal periods by three to five minutes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

The Canadian Pharmacy Spammers are at it again, or should we say still at it again.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision affirming the refusal to register the mark LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS BRING THE TASTE OF LOUISIANA HOME! without a disclaimer of FISH FRY PRODUCTS, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports its finding that FISH FRY PRODUCTS has acquired distinctiveness.

(United States First Circuit) - In a lawsuit over the trademarking and continued sale of a chicken sandwich, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and Copyright Act, the district court's order dismissing the federal claims and declination of jurisdiction over the supplemental Puerto Rico law claims is affirmed where: 1) there was no violation of the Copyright Act because neither the name "Pechu Sandwich" nor the recipe are eligible for copyright protection; and 2) the complaint fails to sufficiently plead that defendant committed fraud in the procurement of a federal trademark for the sandwich.