Appellants

NCLA Calls on 11th Cir. to Vacate District Court’s Judgment in Case SEC Never Should Have Brought

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, January 18, 2023
Security (finance), Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, NCLA, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Sale, Seventh Amendment, Treasury, Appellants

However, the district court erred, because Appellants did not make any material misrepresentations or materially misleading omissions in connection with the sale of securities.

Key Points: 
  • However, the district court erred, because Appellants did not make any material misrepresentations or materially misleading omissions in connection with the sale of securities.
  • The district court also erred, as a matter of law, when it permitted time-barred conduct to go before the jury.
  • NCLA released the following statements:
    “On the eve of the statute of limitation period running, SEC filed a vastly over-pled complaint.
  • Liability based on statements published by SEC should be limited to the SEC, which put up the information in the first place.”

NCLA Files Fifth Circuit Appeal to Stop Unlawful 24/7 Tracking of Gulf of Mexico Charter Boats

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, May 3, 2022
Constitution, NMFS, Privacy, Fifth, Department, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, The Final Rule, GLOBE, Doe et al. v. Trump Corp. et al., The Administrative State, Vessel monitoring system, Government, NCLA, Data collection, Final, Lists of action films, Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Gulf of Mexico, Fourth Amendment, Family, Fourth, National Marine Fisheries Service, Commerce, Pleasure, Constant, Movement, Congress, District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Clemons v. Department of Commerce, Appellants, GPS, Notice of proposed rulemaking, List, Online gambling, Hunting, Public relations

The appeal challenges a Final Rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Key Points: 
  • The appeal challenges a Final Rule issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  • It requires 24-hour GPS tracking of recreational charter boat fishing vessels in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • On August 20, 2020, Appellants filed a class-action suit challenging the Final Rule as unconstitutional and unlawful.
  • The imposition of permanent 24-hour-a-day electronic tracking of charter boats is a novel and dangerous government intrusion into Americans private lives.

Becker & Poliakoff Appeals Ruling in $10 Million Case of Student Who Sued Ross School for Providing Alcohol to Teens During Class Trip to Patagonia

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, April 14, 2022
Family, Supreme court, Memorandum, Hampton Bays, New York, County, Student, Alexander Soloviev (historian), Ross School, Attention, Becker, Bullying, Respondent, Trust, Ridesharing company, Online gambling, Property management, Appellants

NEW YORK, April 14, 2022 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm Becker & Poliakoff today announced it has filed an appeal in the case of a student who sued the Ross School for providing alcohol to underage students on a class trip and for bullying.

Key Points: 
  • The family of Hayden Soloviev sued the private East Hampton, N.Y., school after teachers provided alcohol to students on the March 2020 trip to Patagonia.
  • Supreme Court Justice William Condon dismissed the case on Dec. 7, 2021.Soloviev v. Ross School, Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, Index No.
  • Soloviev v. Ross School, Appeal #2021-09503
    According to the appeal, the school created their own "version" of the facts.
  • Becker & Poliakoff partner Glenn Spiegel said Hayden wants vindication and any money he wins would go to an anti-bullying charity.

Class-Action Plaintiffs in Fed. Employee Vaccine Mandate Case File Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit Appeal

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, February 24, 2022
GLOBE, Government, Movement, Court, COVID-19, Federation, The Administrative State, NCLA, Veni, vidi, vici, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, List, Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America, Appellants, Immunity, Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom, Vaccine, District court, U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Constitution, Lists of action films, Public relations, Feds

, have submitted a brief amici curiae in a similar case seeking to overturn the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate.

Key Points: 
  • , have submitted a brief amici curiae in a similar case seeking to overturn the Federal Employee Vaccine Mandate.
  • v. Biden, Jr., et al., currently on an expedited oral argument schedule before the Fifth Circuit.
  • Yesterday, Southern District Judge Jeffrey Brown issued a stay in Rodden until the Fifth Circuit rules on the injunction in Feds for Medical Freedom.
  • Weve seen the governments assertions prove overwrought in the CDCs eviction moratorium litigation and with OSHAs employer vaccine mandate.

NCLA Asks Fifth Circuit to End an SEC Lifetime Gag Order that Violates the First Amendment

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, December 16, 2021
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, Electric Bond and Share Company v. Securities and Exchange Commission, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Administrative State, Gag order, District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, Gag rule (United States), Â, List, Movement, Speech, Comment, Processor register, Freedom, NCLA, Administrative Procedure Act (United States), SEC, First, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Time, ICAN, Complaint, GLOBE, Commission, Congress, Constitution, Administration, Federal Register, Person, Judgement, Appellants, Online gambling, Security (finance), Financial adviser, Public relations

On May 11, 2015, SEC filed a complaint against Mr. Novinger and ICAN Investment Group, where he formerly served as director.

Key Points: 
  • On May 11, 2015, SEC filed a complaint against Mr. Novinger and ICAN Investment Group, where he formerly served as director.
  • Mr. Novinger and ICAN continue to be bound by the Gag Order provision, yet desire to engage in truthful public statements concerning the SEC enforcement proceeding.
  • The Gag Order also violates Appellants right to due process of law because it was never authorized by Congress, nor was it lawfully promulgated by SEC.
  • The gag rule was invalid from the moment SEC deceitfully slipped it into the Federal Register in violation of law five decades ago.

Appeals Court Upholds $2.87 Million Judgment for Asbestos Victim in South Carolina Case

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, September 2, 2021
LLC, Lawyer, Catastrophic injury, Appellate court, General Electric Company, LLP, Duke Energy, Veni, vidi, vici, Judgement, Appellants, Motion, Jolly & Son, Pharmaceutical industry, Nightclub

COLUMBIA, S.C., Sept. 2, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --The South Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed a 2017 jury verdict that found a power plant worker's mesothelioma was substantially caused by repeated exposure to asbestos-laden valves.

Key Points: 
  • COLUMBIA, S.C., Sept. 2, 2021 /PRNewswire/ --The South Carolina Court of Appeals has affirmed a 2017 jury verdict that found a power plant worker's mesothelioma was substantially caused by repeated exposure to asbestos-laden valves.
  • Mr. Jolly died in 2018, a year after the jury verdict against valve makers Fisher Controls International and Crosby Valve LLC.
  • Following the jury's verdict, the Spartanburg County trial court judge increased the award to $2.87 million against the two valve makers and those companies appealed.
  • 2017-002611 in the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

ESAs’ Board of Appeal dismisses case against the EBA on alleged non-application of Union law as manifestly inadmissible

Retrieved on: 
Friday, January 15, 2021
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, European Union, Insurance regulation, Appellants, European Patent Organisation, Government, Legal procedure

In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.

Key Points: 
  • In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.
  • In addition, the Board of Appeal notes that the Appellant, at the time of filing this new appeal, was fully aware of the reasons of inadmissibility of the appeal filed against ESMA and EIOPA.
  • The Board of Appeal, therefore, considers the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and does not allow for any further consideration.
  • The appeal against EBAs communication of 21 December 2020 was filed with the Board of Appeal on 22 December 2020.

ESAs’ Board of Appeal dismisses case against the EBA on alleged non-application of Union law as manifestly inadmissible

Retrieved on: 
Friday, January 15, 2021
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, European Union, Insurance regulation, Appellants, European Patent Organisation, Government, Legal procedure

In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.

Key Points: 
  • In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.
  • In addition, the Board of Appeal notes that the Appellant, at the time of filing this new appeal, was fully aware of the reasons of inadmissibility of the appeal filed against ESMA and EIOPA.
  • The Board of Appeal, therefore, considers the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and does not allow for any further consideration.
  • The appeal against EBAs communication of 21 December 2020 was filed with the Board of Appeal on 22 December 2020.

ESAs’ Board of Appeal dismisses case against the EBA on alleged non-application of Union law as manifestly inadmissible

Retrieved on: 
Friday, January 15, 2021
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, European Union, Insurance regulation, Appellants, European Patent Organisation, Government, Legal procedure

In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.

Key Points: 
  • In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as manifestly inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve a subject-matter within the remit of the EBA nor of the Board of Appeal.
  • In addition, the Board of Appeal notes that the Appellant, at the time of filing this new appeal, was fully aware of the reasons of inadmissibility of the appeal filed against ESMA and EIOPA.
  • The Board of Appeal, therefore, considers the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and does not allow for any further consideration.
  • The appeal against EBAs communication of 21 December 2020 was filed with the Board of Appeal on 22 December 2020.

ESAs’ Board of Appeal dismisses case against EIOPA on alleged non-application of Union law as manifestly inadmissible

Retrieved on: 
Wednesday, November 4, 2020
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority, European Union, Insurance regulation, R (ProLife Alliance) v BBC, Appellants, Government, European Patent Organisation, Law

In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve insurances and occupational pension funds or any other subject-matter within the remit of EIOPA nor of the Board of Appeal.

Key Points: 
  • In its decision, the Board of Appeal dismisses the Appellants claim as inadmissible as the facts described do not seem to involve insurances and occupational pension funds or any other subject-matter within the remit of EIOPA nor of the Board of Appeal.
  • The Board of Appeal finds that Mr Howertons appeal merely reiterated the very same complaints which had been raised in the past by the Appellant towards the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and which the Board of Appeal determined to be inadmissible in that context.
  • In addition, the Board of Appeal notes that the Appellant, at the time of filing this new appeal, was fully aware of the reasons of inadmissibility of the appeal filed against ESMA.
  • The Board of Appeal, therefore, considers the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and does not allow for any further consideration.