Articles Posted in Authors of Articles

As announced yesterday July 23, 2009, U.S. federal agents swept accross New Jersey and New York, charging 44 people (including mayors, rabbis and one alleged trafficker in human kidneys) of being involved in public corruption and international money laundering practices..

The following are links to some documents related to that two track investigation. For additional news and related information go to the U.S. Department of Justice website at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nj/press/index.html

Statement: Two Track Investigation of Political Corruption and International Money Laundering

David Badertscher*

For almost forty years I have been in charge of law libraries. During that time I have acquired great appreciation and respect for the value and work of library catalogers. This posting is a small token of that respect and gratitude.

Have you ever wondered how all the information in library online catalogs, or OPACS is collected and organized in a way that makes it accessible and useful to us when we need it? As it turns out, the process of collecting–and especially organizing–this information and making it accessible to us is quite rigorous, involving complex, exacting standards and rules.

To perhaps oversimplify, cataloguing involves listing, analyzing, describing, classifying, identifying points of access such as subject headings or titles (access points) to the information being cataloged, and making any necessary preparation for user access from both within a library or through remote access from various locations, of knowledge based structured content (bibliographic content) associated with a library or group of libraries, all under the direction of specially trained professional catalogers. To ensure consistency and overall coordination of these processes both within and among libraries, it has been essential to establish well coordinated and agreed upon standards and conventions which catalogers working from diverse locations and organizations can rely upon to provide maximum benefit to us the end users.

For cataloging standards to remain relevant, they must take into account various factors including the preservation of the integrity and accessibility of the collection being cataloged, the mission of the organization housing or hosting the collection, needs and concerns of end users, and changes in information needs and cultural values over time. Depending on circumstances, such changes may necessitate either comparatively minor revisions or major revisions in order for these standards to remain relevant as the basis for effective cataloging. Judging from what I have read while preparing this posting it appears that catalogers have always been and continue to be very diligent and effective in this regard.

For many years the rules of cataloging have been primarily governed by a group of standards and rules called Anglo American Cataloguing Rules (AACR) and later AACR2 which is still being used as this is being written. Both AACR and AACR2 were designed to accommodate either hard copy (print or card catalogs) or earlier versions of computer-based or online catalogs. By the beginning of the 21st century it was widely recognized that either a major revision in AACR2 or a new standard that goes beyond existing cataloging codes was needed to provide adequate guidelines for cataloging digital resources, responding to the challenges of the world wide web, and to provide a greater emphasis on helping an increasingly diverse group of users to find, identify, select and obtain the information they need. After much discussion, consultation, and deliberation it was decided to go with a new standard called Resource Description and Access or RDA, which is scheduled to replace AACR2 later this year, 2009.

Why is this being discussed on a public blawg? Because we need to realize that although much of their work is behind the scenes and invisible to most of us, catalogers continue to play an important, critical role in enabling us to find the information essential to our going about our daily lives both at work and at home. Although search services are often useful, even vital, they are no substitute online catalogs when searching for bibliographic materials housed in libraries, groups of libraries or similar organizations. Cataloging standards can also form the basis for other forms of web searching. A prominent information consultant told me some years ago that he liked to hire catalogers for applications development in database and web searching because he found their training and expertise to be so helpful and effective.

To summarize, from all appearances cataloguers and cataloging continue to be highly relevant to our increasingly interactive and interconnected society with its growing information needs. But they need our recognition and appreciation for their many contributions. I hope this posting helps in that regard . Since this is a general discussion, I have left out many details of possible interest. To help fill in the blanks I have asked Joni Lynn Cassidy, President of Cassidy Cataloging Services to write her own article for this blawg. I am happy to report that she has accepted and we can all look forward to her forthcoming article.
_______________________________ *David Badertscher is the Principal Law Librarian at the New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library, First Judicial District in New York, NY. Although not strictly a cataloger, he is interested in technical services issues and is a member of the AALL TS-SIS.

For those who are interested in pursuing this topic further, you can click on the link below to see some of the sources consulted in preparation for this posting.:
Continue reading

Can the offering of goods and services such as Google searches free of charge be considered in violation of antitrust? Many librarians have expressed an interest in this issue. They are concerned about what any resolution of this question wll have on their continuing efforts to provide knowledge based goods and services (including new and enhanced products) in an increasingly financially constrained environment to patrons with ever increasing expectations. They want to be informed about what the producers and providers they depend on, such as Google, are thinking about this issue? Hence this postingl

In a July 10 posting on the Google Policy Blog Dana Wagner responds to comments by Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine and author of the book Free in a piece Chris wrote for CNN and possibly to additional comments by Chris during his presentation at the Google D.C. office earlier in the week. In his D.C. presentation Chris explained how new business models and approaches to advertising will change the focus of global commerce.

What really seems to have caught Dana Wagner’s attention however is the following excerpt from Chris’s CNN piece:

David Badertscher
Legal experts and prosecutors are quite concerned about possible results of the June 25, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 07-591. In this decision the Court has ruled that forensic analysts conducting tests must be in court to testify about their test results and that lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic, or breath test printouts describing a suspect’s blood-alcohol level are no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence. A person is now required to be in court to talk about the test results. The basic question the Supreme Court addressed in this opinion was: “Is a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?”* In its ruling the Supreme Court answered, yes.
_________________________ *The above quote was taken from discussion of this opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Oyez website at. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_591 . This site also includes links to the text of the opinion as well at to the Syllabus, dissent, concurrance, and argument. For additional information see discussion in a July 15, 2009 Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, and follow the link on the U.S. Supreme Court website.

The Unclassified Report of the President’s Surveillance Program released on July 10, 2009 is a review of the National Security Agency Warrantless Search Program, created during the presidency of George W. Bush some time after September 11, 2001. The unclassified report was prepared by the inspectors general of five government bodies involved in the original program. Among its many observations it raises questions about both whether the extensive secrecy of the original warrantless surveillance program limited its effectiveness and the legal basis of the original program..

The following is an excerpt from the Introduction to the Unclassified Report followed by a link to the entire Report:

From the Introduction:

TITLE: A Right to Discriminate?

SUBTITLE: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association

AUTHOR: Andrew Koppelman with Tobias Barrington Wolff PUBLICATION DATE: July 2009

Lyonette Louis-Jacques of the D’Angelo Law Library at the University of Chicago has conducted a quick, informal, but very interesting survey asking law school librarians how many of their faculty members use Kindles. As often happens with such surveys, the results or responses reveal more than was originally intended, thus creating interest among readers well beyond the range of the original audience. For this reason I have contacted Lyonette and requested her permission, which she has granted, to republish her questions and responses on this blawg for the benefit of our readers. David Badertscher

LYONETTE’S QUESTIONS:

I asked on Twitter, teknoids and the CSSIS-L lists. I got 21 responses. 6 responders indicated they own Kindles.

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (New York City Bar) has just published its Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts. Commenting on the Report in his June 11, 2009 New York Law Journal article, “City Bar Report Cites ‘Serious Problems’ With Bronx Merger”, Daniel Wise writes: “The merger of Criminal and Supreme courts in the Bronx has created ‘serious problems’ if additional judicial resources are not made available, a report by the New York City Bar Concluded.” In the Report it is recommended that “strong and immediate attempts” need to be taken to handle a growing backlog of felony cases.

The New York City Bar report was prepared by the Committee on Criminal Courts and the Committee on Criminal Justice Operations, both committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and released on June 10, 2009. Below is an excerpt from the Opening Statement and a link to the complete report:

Opening Statement Excerpt:

The background information regarding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor at our earlier posting has been updated to include her completed questionnaire which was delivered to the Committee of the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate on Thursday June 4, 2009. For those who have not seen it, that posting which is at:

https://www.criminallawlibraryblog.com/2009/05/judge_sonia_sotomayor_backgrou.html

According to Ed O’Keefe in a June 5, 2009 Washington Post article, “Library Officials Accused of Interference”, Senator Charles E. Grassley has written a sharply worded letter to the Librarian of Congress , James H. Billington, stating “…Your office attempts to influence and/or control [the Office of Inspector General] appear to be in direct contravention of the principles underlying the creation of the Inspector General”. The article explains that the question is whether top officials at the Library of Congress interfered with investigations conducted by its “independent watchdogs” such as the Office of the Inspector General and whether they have admonished investigators for the tone and focus of their investigations.

For additional information on this topic see our April 30, 2009 posting on this blog which provides additional information and a link to the Marhc 2009 report of the Office of the Inspector General regarding information technology planning at the Library of Congress: Information Technology Strategic Planning: A Well Developed Framework is Essential to Support the Library’s Current and Future Infortation Technology (IT) Needs , Report Number 2008-PA-105 March 2008.

Contact Information