The following is from a letter sent by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to OMB Director Peter Orszag requesting full federal funding to reimburse the City for security costs associated with Terrorism Trials to be held in Manhattan.
January 5, 2010
The Honorable Peter R. Orszag
During every session of the New York Legislature the current governor and his staff prepare bills addressing his or her objectives to be introduced directly in the legislature by the Governor. While it is assumed that legislatures in other states have similar mechanisms, this posting is only concernd with Governor’s programs in the State of New York.
When first introduced, these program bills are only sponsored by the Governor but once they have been introduced, members of the legislature can and often do add their names as sponsors. It is my understanding that once such a bill is introduced the process by which it works its way through the legislature is similar to other legislation except that if such a bill is amended while under consideration, it is then sent back to the Governor’s office for review, further modification etc.
In conversations I have had with people in the Governor’s office it was emphasized that Governor’s Programs should not be considered identical with other legislation introduced directly by individuall or groups of legislators and that Budget programs are separate from the Governor’s Program being discussed here. During those conversations the following book was recemmended as an excellent source for further information on this topic:
A List of New York State Chapter Laws Signed in 2009. Arranged in decending order. Includes Chapter Numbers, Bill Numbers and Titles
To retrieve the text of any of the New York Chapter laws listed below, go to http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menuf.cgi
507 S66007 KLEIN — Relates to home mortgage loans, the crime of mortgage fraud, and appropriations to the NYS housing trust fund corporation
506 A40012 Rules (Brodsky) — Creates the authorities budget office; repealer
505 A2209C Brodsky — Creates an independent authority budget office; repealer
504 A40026 Rules (Silver) — Provides retirement benefits for new entrants to certain public retirement systems
503 A40023 Budget — Implements savings adjustments to the state fiscal plan
502 A40022 Budget — Amends various provisions of chapters of the laws 2009 making appropriations for the support of government
501 A40021 Budget — Authorizes commissioner of taxation and finance to administer accounts receivable discount program with respect to certain overdue tax liabilities
500 A40011 Rules (Destito) — Authorizes term appointments without examination for certain information technology positions
499 S66009 BRESLIN — Relates to the licensure of life settlement brokers; creates certain crimes relating to life settlement fraud; relates to premium finance agreement; repealer
498 S66006 BRESLIN — Establishes a special enrollment period for employees and members with expired health coverage who wish to utilize state continuation benefits
497 S66004A THOMPSON — Authorizes municipalities to create a municipal sustainable energy loan program
496 A40008 Rules (Weisenberg) — Relates to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child passenger
495 S66005 VALESKY — Relates to eligibility of certain felony offenders for parole and medical parole
494 S66002 STEWART-COUSINS — Enacts into law major components of legislation necessary for the efficient operation of local governments; repealer
493 A8924 Hoyt — Establishes the crime of aggravated interference with health care services in the first and second degrees
492 A7779 Rosenthal — Relates to the duties of the municipal police training council
491 A5643 Farrell — Raises minimum salary of each of the county clerks of the counties comprising the city of New York to that of supreme court justices instead of civil court judges Continue reading
Top Ten Stories for Week Ending January 8, 2010.
Layoffs BigLaw Laid Off More than 12,000 People in 2009, the Worst Year Ever
Jan 4, 2010, 06:55 am CST
Top Ten Stories for Week Ending December 30, 2009:
Legal Technology
100 Best Blawgs of 2009
Top Ten Stories for Week Ending December 23, 2009
Lawyer Pay
First-Year Associates Bear the Brunt of Lower Bonuses; Some See Cuts of 71%
Top Ten Stories for Week Ending December 18, 2009:
Trademark Law
The North Face Sues The South Butt for Trademark Infringement
David Badertscher
Although not primarily a reviewer of legal materials, Kirkus Reviews is one of the most outstanding and respected review magazines devoted to book media. It was founded in 1933 by Virginia Kirkus (1893-1981) a former head of the children’s book department of Harper & Bros. with the idea of holding book reviewing to a very high standard, being selective in both the books reviewed and the people assgned to review them. The first year they received about 20 advance galley proofs.
By all accounts Kirus has managed to maintain these high standards throughout the years, becomeing one of the true standard bearers for the authoritative reviewing of all types of titles including those related to law. According to their website, Kirkus currently reviews about 5,000 titles per year “with the idea of of providing Kirkus regulars (librarians, newspaper editors, agents, film producers, booksellers, and those throughout the book world in general) with professional, informative, and impartial descriptive evaluations of forthcoming titles, and to do so on a timely basis.”
THOMAS was launched on January 5, 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public. Since that time THOMAS has expanded the scope of its offerings to include many features and content including those listed below.:
Bills, Resolutions Activity in Congress Congressional Record Schedules, Calendars Committee Information Presidential Nominations
Now, fifteen years later in response to user feedback and in celebration of its fifteenth anniversary, THOMAS has been updated for the second session of the 111th Congress.
December-28, 2009 – January 1, 2010
To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2009 US v. Dyer, No. 08-1343 Sentence on a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly interpreted the trafficking cross-reference under U.S.S.G. section 2G2.4(c)(2) to include situations in which a defendant intended to exchange child pornography without any commercial purpose; 2) defendant’s argument that the government must necessarily show the defendant actively and subjectively desired that others would get images of child pornography from him and that ordinary general intent does not suffice is rejected; 3) district court did not err in concluding that defendant’s online conduct showed an “intent to traffic” under section 2G2.4(c)(2); and 4) defendant’s argument that agent’s testimony violated his Confrontation Clause rights because the grand jury testimony was never part of the record and because he had no chance to challenge that testimony during the sentencing hearing is rejected as without merit.
U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, December 30, 2009 US v. MacPherson, No. 08-1829 Defendant’s drug distribution sentence following a guilty plea is affirmed where: 1) the agreement and the plea colloquy put the defendant on notice that the Pimentel drug quantity estimate was not binding on the prosecutor and that if the estimate was wrong, the plea could not be withdrawn; and 2) there was no authority that prevented a sentencing judge from using facts of the offense conduct both to determine the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range and to select a sentence within that range.
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 28, 2009 Smith v. Smith, No. 08-7139 In an inmate’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a prison nurse claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, district court’s judgment in favor of the defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the inmate made out a claim for a deliberate indifference and the district court erred in finding that he failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment; and 2) because the district court premised both the grant of the motion to dismiss and qualified immunity on its finding that plaintiff failed to allege deliberate indifference in his complaint, the immunity analysis was prematurely concluded on the erroneous basis that plaintiff did not plead facts sufficient to indicate defendant had deliberate indifference to his medical need.
Continue reading
