floridaprelaw-blog

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Big Tobacco

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

September 25, 2023

In the early 1900s, the popularity of cigarette smoking saw a significant surge due to the invention of automated cigarette rolling machines and a myriad of tactical marketing campaigns by prominent tobacco corporations. Since the early 20th century, Big Tobacco has consistently maintained an indelible imprint within the psyche of consumers. By the 1940s, the prevalence of smoking within the population had reached a staggering 49%, which is attributable to the glamorization of cigarettes by the silver screen and aggressive marketing that targeted all social classes. (Cheng & Kenkel, 2010) Despite an abundance of unambiguous medical reports linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer, the acclaim for and pervasive consumption of cigarettes persisted at unfathomable proportions. Correspondingly, in 1964, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee published a conclusive report that definitively proclaimed that “the death rate for smokers was 70% higher than the death rate of non-smokers,” with the main causes of death for smokers being “lung cancer, bronchitis/emphysema, larynx cancer,” and a plethora of other life-threatening “circulatory diseases.” (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1964) Although the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee issued a credible warning, there was only a marginal drop in the population of cigarette smokers to 40% as smoking continued in hospitals, school buildings, and aboard airplanes. (Cummings & Proctor, 2015) Since the 1970s, a plethora of states have effectively employed a form of banning smoking, while the federal government has prohibited smoking in all federal buildings through President Clinton’s executive order. In a parallel manner, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) elevated its accreditation standards for hospitals to require the prohibition of smoking by the end of 1993. (Longo, et al., 1998)

Amidst growing public awareness of the pernicious effects of cigarettes, the United States House of Representatives conducted a hearing on the regulation of tobacco products in 1994. During the congressional committee hearing, the CEO of Philip Morris, USA, and other Big Tobacco executives testified under oath that “nicotine is not addictive.” (University of California, San Francisco, n.d.) In 1995, Phillip Morris created Project Sunrise, which had the aim of advancing the promotion of cigarettes while simultaneously invalidating the anti-tobacco movement and challenging the scientific consensus asserting the addictive nature of nicotine. Within the framework of Project Sunrise, Phillip Morris actively supported the “moderate” tobacco control proponents while presenting itself to the public as “responsible” in relation to its counterparts within the tobacco industry. (McDaniel, Smith, & Malone, 2006)

The repercussions of Project Sunrise had a profound influence on the initiation of the U.S. Supreme Court case Philip Morris USA v. Williams, where the estate of Jesse Williams, a man who passed away due to lung cancer, alleged that Philip Morris had orchestrated a deliberate campaign of misinformation regarding the hazards of smoking. In an Oregon trial court, a jury awarded the estate of Williams $821,485 in compensatory damages and an initial $79.5 million in punitive damages, but the trial judge reduced the punitive damages award to $32 million due to the excessive nature of the $79.5 million. Subsequently, the Oregon Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million award, which the Oregon Supreme Court upheld based on the reprehensible actions of Philip Morris. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision and remanded the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court because the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “forbids” states from utilizing punitive damages as a means of punishing “a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a jury is not allowed to “go further than” using the evidence of injury to nonparties to determine “reprehensibility” of conduct by punishing “a defendant directly on account of harms” that have been inflicted on non-parties. (Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 2007)

Philip Morris USA v. Williams established a pivotal precedent for Big Tobacco and for the jurisprudence of punitive damages. For the jurisprudence of punitive damages, Philip Morris USA v. Williams provided a discernible standard for guiding how punitive damages can be imposed on a defendant. In the context of Big Tobacco, Philip Morris USA v. Williams prompted Philip Morris to cautiously assess the credible threat of similar cases that could emerge across multiple jurisdictions.

Society has since observed the decline of traditional cigarette consumption while witnessing the burgeoning growth of the e-cigarette market. In response to the industry shift, Philip Morris made a strategic purchase of a 35% stake in the biggest e-cigarette company, Juul Labs Inc. Juul Labs Inc. agreed to pay $462 million to settle the accusations that the corporation promoted addictive nicotine products to children through recruiting social media influencers, purchasing ad space across youth-focused websites, and an extensive array of other marketing tactics. (Kaplan, 2021) While state attorney generals and other prosecutors have cultivated significant strides in addressing the harmful consequences of Big Tobacco, the public must acknowledge the proliferation of the e-cigarette market as a threat to society’s viability while advocating for more legislation to prevent avoidable deaths from smoking, similar to Jesse Williams.

______________________________________

Cheng, K.-W., & Kenkel, D. S. (2010). U.S. Cigarette Demand: 1944–2004. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine.

Cummings, K. M., & Proctor, R. N. (2015). The Changing Public Image of Smoking in the United States: 1964–2014. Bethesda: National Library of Medicine.

Kaplan, S. (2021, May 25). Juul Bought Ads Appearing on Cartoon Network and Other Youth Sites, Suit Claims. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/health/juul-vaping-lawsuit.html

Longo, D. R., Feldman, M. M., Kruse, R. L., Brownson, R. C., Petroski, G. F., & Hewett, J. E. (1998). Implementing smoking bans in American hospitals: results of a national survey. Columbia: University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine.

McDaniel, P. A., Smith, E. A., & Malone, R. E. (2006). Philip Morris's Project Sunrise: weakening tobacco control by working with it. Bethesda : National Library of Medicine .

Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 05-1256 (The Supreme Court of the United States February 20, 2007).

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1964). Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

University of California, San Francisco. (n.d.). Tobacco CEO's Statement to Congress 1994 News Clip "Nicotine is not addictive.". Retrieved from University of California, San Francisco Academic Senate: https://senate.ucsf.edu/tobacco-ceo-statement-to-congress

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Legal Dimensions of Michelangelo's David Controversy: Balancing Art, Education, and Parental Rights

By Olivia Borek, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg

September 17, 2023

In March of this year, an unassuming art lesson at the Tallahassee Classical School involving 6th graders, aged 11-12, erupted into a contentious legal debate at the intersection of art, education, and parental control [1]. The epicenter of this argument was Michelangelo's iconic sculpture, David, celebrated for its artistic grandeur and historical significance. During a class on Renaissance art, students were presented with a photographic reproduction of the original sculpture, an imposing 15-foot-tall figure carved from white marble [1].

The core of the legal dispute revolved around two pivotal concerns raised by parents. Firstly, some parents argued that displaying Michelangelo's David in a classroom setting amounted to exposing minors to explicit content, categorizing it as "pornographic" and potentially running afoul of relevant obscenity laws [1]. Secondly, a faction of parents expressed their dissatisfaction with not being forewarned about the lesson, asserting that this lack of notification constituted a violation of their parental rights, as enshrined in education laws [1].

Following the incident, parents of the 6th graders promptly contacted Principal Hope Carrasquilla to voice their concerns [2]. One parent, in particular, deemed the art lesson "pornographic" and believed it to be unsuitable for minors, suggesting potential legal consequences for exposing children to explicit content [1]. This claim harkens back to historical incidents involving David's nudity, such as Queen Victoria's use of a fig leaf to obscure the sculpture's genitalia [1].          

Furthermore, two other parents expressed their discontent over the absence of prior notification about the lesson, asserting that such notification is mandated by various education laws, which require parental involvement in their children's education [1].          

This incident has thrust into the spotlight the ongoing legal debate concerning parental control over children's education, a contentious matter not only at the state level in Florida but also with federal implications [2]. Florida recently enacted HB 1557, a controversial bill that introduces penalties for teaching or discussing restricted topics related to sex and gender identity in schools, thereby reflecting the state's stance on education content [1]. Additionally, H.R. 6056, also known as the 'Parents Bill of Rights,' is poised to require schools to furnish parents with more comprehensive notices regarding lesson plans and afford them greater influence in curriculum decisions, signaling federal-level legal deliberations on parental rights in education [3].

Tallahassee Classical School, in its official statement, asserted that certain parents opt for charter schools precisely to exert greater control over classroom activities and curricula, implying that this legal facet of educational autonomy aligns with their ethos [1]. Principal Carrasquilla's resignation amid this legal tempest underscores the schism between her values and those of the institution [1].

Significantly, this debate spotlights the age-old legal debate juxtaposing the appreciation of art in its original form against societal prudishness [3]. Michelangelo's David enjoys worldwide acclaim as a Renaissance masterpiece [1]. Cecilie Hollberg, the director of the Galleria dell'Accademia, invited all involved parties to experience firsthand the sculpture's cultural and artistic significance, thereby affirming its legal status as a work of art rather than pornography [2].           

The incident serves as a poignant reminder of historical reactions to nudity in art, encouraging a legal review of whether modern society remains influenced by Victorian-era prudishness.        

Furthermore, many legal scholars argue that societal taboos surrounding nudity can precipitate broader legal consequences, potentially infringing on First Amendment rights while impeding scientific and educational endeavors. Such consequences may include perpetuating body shame, hindering the acquisition of knowledge about human anatomy, and inhibiting discussions on safe sex practices [1].

The discussion surrounding the Tallahassee Classical School's exposure of 6th graders to Michelangelo's David underscores a complex legal debate regarding parental control, educational autonomy, and the preservation of art and culture [3]. While some parents maintained that the lesson transgressed the bounds of legal appropriateness for minors, others defended it as an essential educational experience [1].

As society confronts these intricate legal questions, it becomes imperative to strike a legal balance between safeguarding parental rights and upholding the educational and cultural value of art [2]. The disagreement serves as a clarion call for legal discourse and understanding between parents, educators, and lawmakers, who must navigate the legal tightrope between protecting children and facilitating their intellectual and cultural development within the bounds of the law [3].         

In essence, the Michelangelo's David controversy serves as an illuminating case study within the realm of education law and cultural preservation, offering legal scholars and policymakers an opportunity to explore and clarify the ever-evolving landscape of parental rights, art education, and legal prudishness in the 21st century.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Akers, Torey. “Florida School Principal Fired for Showing Students Michelangelo’s ‘pornographic’ David Sculpture.” The Art Newspaper - International Art News and Events, 23 Mar. 2023, www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/03/23/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-pornographic.

[2] Kim, Juliana. “A Florida Principal Who Was Fired after Showing Students ‘david’ Is Welcomed in Italy.” NPR, 1 May 2023, www.npr.org/2023/05/01/1173017248/florida-principal-david-michelangelo-visit-italy.

[3] Rice, Lynette. “‘the Simpsons’ Credited for Predicting Fate of Florida Principal Who Was Forced out by Parents Angered by Michelangelo’s ‘David.’” Deadline, 25 Mar. 2023, deadline.com/2023/03/florida-parents-michelangelo-david-statue-the-simpsons-1235309907/.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Walt Disney World’s Special Tax District

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

August 19, 2023

The Walt Disney Company has garnered extensive acclaim in the collective consciousness of the world by virtue of its creation of iconic cinematic productions that include The Lion King, along with indelibly cherished characters including Mickey Mouse. While the Walt Disney Company’s prominence notably emanates from its perpetually treasured cinematic innovations and timeless characters, it manages an array of multifarious divisions that are aimed at maximizing the value of shares for investors. The Walt Disney Company is bifurcated into two discernible segments that orchestrate all of Disney's commercial transactions and daily operations for the purpose of advancing the corporation’s fiscal prosperity and entertainment acclaim. The Walt Disney Corporation is portioned into a distinct segment called Disney Parks, Experiences, and Products that exercises supervision over a worldwide collection of theme parks encompassing Walt Disney World, as well as magnificent vacation destinations exemplified by Aulani and maritime voyages under the subsidiary of Disney Cruise Line. In a similar fashion, the Walt Disney Company is demarcated into another segment named Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution that is responsible for the oversight of creation studios, including Lucasfilm Animation, and the administration of streaming platforms, including Hulu. The strategically diversified investment portfolio of the Walt Disney Company has fortified it to attain an unassailable market share while firmly establishing its presence across a myriad of business sectors. The triumphant performance exhibited by the two segments of the Walt Disney Company acts as a driving force in propelling the corporation to attain a formidable net worth that surpasses $100 billion and to merit its esteemed rank of 48 on the Fortune 500 list.

Following the triumphant achievements of Disneyland in California, the Walt Disney Company aspired to construct an enticing tourist destination in the eastern region of the United States. The Walt Disney Company conducted assessments of St. Louis and Niagara Falls, but these cities ultimately failed to materialize into concrete manifestations of theme park ventures. Due to the frigid climates in the winter months of St. Louis and Niagara Falls, the corporation was compelled to explore land options in Central Florida. (Emerson) Recognizing that acquiring over 25,000 acres of land openly might arouse suspicion and lead to unnecessarily inflated prices, the Walt Disney Company formulated a tactical approach. The strategic plan involved creating shell corporations, cultivating land trusts, and employing covert designations to discreetly procure the marshy terrain of Orange and Osceola counties over the course of the mid-1960s. (The Presser Law Firm, P.A.) In 1967, the Walt Disney Company and the Florida State Legislature created the special tax district of Reedy Creek Improvement District, which granted the corporation the authority to oversee its own building codes, permit distribution, bond issuance, and tax collection. (Reedy Creek Improvement District) With special tax districts totaling over 1,000, including the prominent Daytona Beach Racing and Recreational Facilities District, the mechanism of utilizing special tax districts in Florida is common, as the districts generate revenue through specialized taxation, allow greater autonomy for communities, and provide efficient governance. (Sampson)

In 1968, the State of Florida sued the Reedy Creek Improvement District on the grounds that the district lacked the power to plan for drainage of its own waterlogged terrain and to issue revenue bonds for financing of the drainage endeavor. The Supreme Court of Florida rendered a verdict deeming that the appellant's contention that the project predominantly catered to Disney's interests was "untenable" because the primary objective is a valid public purpose given that the project would "improve sanitation and pest control conditions while aiding in the conservation of natural resources." The Supreme Court of Florida also deduced that as "long as specific constitutional provisions are not offended," a special improvement district can be located within "more than one county and possess multi-purpose powers essential to the realization of a valid public purpose." The Supreme Court of Florida held that the legislation establishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District did not conflict with Article III Section 20 of the Constitution of the State of Florida because the Court previously held that it is permissible for the Florida Legislature "to impose state and county" officials with administrative duties "as an incident to the formation of a taxing district for governmental purposes in order to effectuate the purposes of the district." Ultimately, the Court concluded that the legislation establishing the Reedy Creek Improvement District conferred the district with the control to "issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, or any other bonds to pay all or part of the cost of construction," and that the Board of the Reedy Creek Improvement District "was reasonable" and "accordingly not arbitrary, unfair, or inequitable" in its imposition of fees. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled in favor of the Reedy Creek Improvement District and solidified a case precedent that granted the Walt Disney Company with more than 5 decades of safeguarded authority. (State of Florida et al. v. Reedy Creek Improvement District)

In April 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 4-C, which stipulated that any "independent special district" promulgated "prior to November 5, 1968" that "was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise reconstituted by a special act" will be "dissolved effective June 1, 2023." The Florida Senate bill conspicuously directed its focus towards the dissolution of the Walt Disney Company’s special district, which could cause the special district to be absorbed into Osceola and Orange counties. Jerry Demings, mayor of Orange County, declared that assuming responsibility for "the first response" and ensuring the public safety of Reedy Creek would be "catastrophic for the county's budget" and "would be an undue burden on the rest of the taxpayers in Orange County." (Sampson) Governor Ron DeSantis, the Walt Disney Company, and the mayors of Orange and Osceola counties must collaboratively formulate a resolution to rectify the imminent fiscal upheaval that is poised to confront Osceola and Orange counties.

______________________________________

Emerson, Chad D. "Merging Public and Private Governance: How Disney's Reedy Creek Improvement District "Re-Imagined" the Traditional Division of Local Regulatory Powers." 2009. Florida State University Law Review. 19 August 2023.

Reedy Creek Improvement District. "About ." 2004. The Reedy Creek Improvement District. 19 August 2023.

Sampson, Hannah. "Disney’s special tax district in Florida, explained." 28 March 2023. The Washington Post. 19 August 2023.

State of Florida et al. v. Reedy Creek Improvement District. No. 37569. The Supreme Court of Florida. 27 November 1968.

The Presser Law Firm, P.A. "How Walt Disney Used Land Trusts to Purchase and Build Disney World." 2 December 2019. The Presser Law Firm, P.A. 19 August 2023.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Patent Infringement and Its Corporate Ramifications

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

August 16, 2023

Intellectual property law, or IP law, is a burgeoning area of the legal profession that is gaining prominence due to its propulsion by a conglomerate of corporations that are ardently endeavoring to fortify safeguards around their painstakingly nurtured innovations. IP law is centered on the preservation of a corporation's rights concerning their own proprietary inventions, designs, phrases, and an extensive array of confidential trade secrets, which are collectively known as intellectual property. (Georgetown University Law Center) Intellectual property is an umbrella term that encapsulates a corporation’s trademarks, patents, and copyrights for the purpose of shielding their distinct creativity. A trademark precludes another individual from utilizing a word, phrase, or design that distinguishes a product or service linked to another individual that registers the trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Illustrative instances of trademarks may encompass the "I’m lovin’ it" phrase, the appellation "McDonald’s," or the golden arch logo that are all associated with the McDonald’s Corporation. Copyright protection ensures that other independent parties cannot duplicate, distribute, or publicly present another independent party's creative productions. For example, the Walt Disney Company owns the copyrights to the Toy Story movie franchise and the Elsa character from the Frozen movie franchise. A patent deters other people from exploiting the technological breakthroughs of another person who has received official patent protection from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. An authentic application of patents by Tesla, Inc. can include their autonomous driving system emergency signaling or seatbelt usage detection mechanisms. (United States Patent and Trademark Office)

Section 289 of the Patent Act stipulates that whoever commits patent infringement is “liable to the owner of the patent to the extent of the total profit” from the infringing party’s sales.  (Cornell Law School) The "total profit" from an infringing party’s sales has significant ramifications, including a detrimental predisposition for the infringing party while distributing astronomical monetary advantages to the party that was infringed upon. The significant ramifications of patent infringement are evidenced in the 2016 Supreme Court case involving Samsung Electronics and Apple. In 2011, Apple sued Samsung Electronics for patent infringement on the grounds that Samsung infringed on design patents for the iPhone’s display screen, rounded edge design, and interface of icons on a black screen. (University of California, Irvine School of Law) After a jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California awarded Apple $399 million, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the ruling, which prompted Samsung to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc.)

Section 289 of the Patent Act explicitly defines that patent infringement occurs when an individual employs a "patented design or any imitation to any article of manufacture" without license from the patent owner or when an individual "sells or exposes for sale any article of manufacture" that incorporates the unlicensed patented design or imitation. (Cornell Law School) In a unanimous decision, Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion that remanded the case on the grounds that the "article of manufacture" definition of "covering only an end product sold to a consumer was too narrow" because the definition "encompasses both a product sold to a consumer and a component of that product." (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc.) Although the Supreme Court did not quantify the total damages, this decision establishes a definitive and broad scope by including both the entire profits of the end product and the profits derived from the component of the end product that the patent infringes upon. Justice Sotomayor additionally elucidates by defining that a "component may be integrated into a larger product," which cannot "put it outside the category of articles of manufacture." (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc.) While legal scholars may regard the decision as ambiguous, the Supreme Court remanded the case to a lower court with the intention of attaining a refined and precise ruling as the Supreme Court extended the ambit of the "article of manufacture" definition.

Following the remand of the case by the Supreme Court, a jury engaged in deliberations for over four days and subsequently rendered a verdict awarding Apple a staggering sum of $539 million that caused a substantial financial setback to Samsung. (Wolfe and Nellis) Corporations must exercise prudence and foresight when launching new products by preparing for and addressing potential intellectual property law challenges that may arise. To ensure caution and sufficient preparation, corporations should enlist investigation teams within their legal departments to undertake comprehensive inquiries. If Samsung had conducted a thorough and meticulous investigation with an adept team of investigators employed in its legal department, then the corporation could have circumvented a substantial error that resulted in $539 million in damages and years of legal expenses.

______________________________________________________________

Cornell Law School. 35 U.S. Code § 289 - Additional remedy for infringement of design patent. 19 July 1952. 5 August 2023.

Georgetown University Law Center. Intellectual Property Law. n.d. 5 August 2023.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc. Supreme Court of the United States. 6 December 2016.

United States Patent and Trademark Office. Trademark, patent, or copyright. n.d. 5 August 2023.

University of California, Irvine School of Law. The Apple Patent Fight Between Apple and Samsung: Interviews with Korean and Korean-American Attorneys. n.d. 4 August 2023.

Wolfe, Jan and Stephen Nellis. U.S. jury awards Apple $539 million in Samsung patent retrial. 24 May 2018. 5 August 2023.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Cryptocurrency and Its Legal Definition

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

August 16, 2023

Ripple Labs, Inc. is a technology corporation that operates a sophisticated network that enables seamless integration of the financial services industry with secure and reliable cryptocurrency transactions. Ripple Labs is the creator behind the cryptocurrency called XRP, which serves as an intermediary system of exchange between two currencies or networks. (Bogna) Whenever users engage in a financial transaction using the network of Ripple Labs, the network deducts a nominal amount of XRP that is levied as a fee to maintain and incentivize the accurate functioning of the network. (Rodeck) XRP is a versatile cryptocurrency as it has a myriad of strategic utilization techniques, which can include holding XRP as an investment or exchanging XRP for other cryptocurrencies. Moreover, the tactical advantages of XRP, including a faster transaction speed of just seconds and the miniscule fees of a fraction of a penny, engender heightened market demand for the cryptocurrency. The strategic adaptability and tactical efficiencies of XRP have cemented its position as one of the top cryptocurrencies by market capitalization while also garnering the confidence of major financial institutions, including Santander and Bank of America, that invest in the cryptocurrency to modernize and enhance their own financial services.

Although many consider cryptocurrency to be a volatile asset, the valuation of a cryptocurrency hinges on supply and demand dynamics, production costs, availability on exchanges, competition, governance practices, and regulatory frameworks. Navigating through the regulatory structure is particularly pivotal for XRP’s financial sustainability and prosperity because there are current contrasting perspectives on cryptocurrencies in the financial regulatory bodies. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) deems cryptocurrencies as securities that are similar to stocks and bonds, while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) asserts that cryptocurrencies are commodities that are similar to coffee or gold. (Levy) If an asset is regarded as a security and is intended for sale or offering, then the security must be duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or possess an SEC exemption from registration. As corporate executives of Ripple Labs disregarded the security classification of XRP, the corporation omitted registering the offering and sale of XRP or pursuing an exemption. The omission to register or seek an exemption since the inception of XRP in 2013 provoked a lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), as Ripple Labs was accused of directly violating Section 5 of the Securities Act.

The United States District Court surmised that the "institutional sales of XRP to sophisticated individuals and entities pursuant to written contracts" met the criteria of the Howey test. The institutional sales met the first prong of the Howey test because the institutional buyers invested through authoritative orders or other currencies in exchange for XRP. The institutional sales achieved the second prong of the Howey test due to the investment in a common enterprise, as evidenced by Ripple Labs repurposing funds from institutional sales to increase the value of XRP and by the knowledge of institutional buyers that their own success was contingent upon the increase in value of XRP. Due to reasonable institutional investors having a discernible expectation of profits from their investment, the institutional sales satisfied the third prong of the Howey test. As institutional investors would have known that Ripple Labs had actively "pitched a speculative value proposition for XRP's potential profits to be derived from the entrepreneurial and managerial efforts of the corporation," the institutional sales fulfilled the fourth prong of the Howey test. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc.)

Judge Analisa Torres concluded that the "programmatic sales to public buyers on digital asset exchanges" failed to satisfy the third and fourth prongs of the Howey test because the individual buyers engaging in the "blind bid/ask transactions" of XRP did not know that their investments would be tied to Ripple Labs and the individual buyers did not anticipate that their profits were going to derive from the efforts of Ripple Labs. Due to the unsatisfaction of the Howey test, Judge Torres ruled that the programmatic sales to public buyers of XRP did not constitute the offer and sale of investment contracts or securities. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc.)

The ruling in the District Court elicited a sharp surge in the price of XRP to a remarkable 78% increase while also propelling XRP’s market capitalization to grow exponentially from $25 billion to $36 billion. (Mattackal and Singh) Analogously, the verdict will furnish a comprehensive blueprint for future operations and mechanisms pertaining to cryptocurrency investments. Poignantly, the judicial decision rendered by Judge Torres could also fortify assertions offered by cryptocurrency exchanges that are combating comparable Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allegations. (Michaels) Therefore, cryptocurrency exchanges and corporations should examine the ramifications of the established precedent in the lawsuit against Ripple Labs while adeptly leveraging those implications for their own economic prosperity.

______________________________________________________________

Bogna, John. Ripple’s XRP: What It Is, What It’s Worth and Should You Be Investing? 26 September 2022. 29 July 2023.

Levy, Adam. What Gives Bitcoin Value? 28 July 2022. 29 July 2023.

Mattackal, Pauline Lisa and Medha Singh. Cryptoverse: Ripple effect as explosive XRP leads market charge. 25 July 2023. 29 July 2023.

Michaels, David. Ripple Ruling Deals a Blow to SEC’s Effort to Regulate Crypto. 13 July 2023. 29 July 2023.

Rodeck, David. What Is XRP (Ripple)? 13 July 2023. 29 July 2023.

Securities and Exchange Commission. SEC Charges Ripple and Two Executives with Conducting $1.3 Billion Unregistered Securities Offering. 22 December 2020. 29 July 2023.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs Inc. No. 1:20-cv-10832. United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. 13 July 2023.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.J. Howey Co. et al. The Supreme Court of the United States. 27 May 1946.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Legal Battle of Flo Rida versus Celsius Holdings, Inc.

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

July 24, 2023

Flo Rida, who is legally known as Tramar Lacel Dillard, rose to global prominence with his 2007 breakthrough hit "Low," which spent multiple weeks atop the Billboard Hot 100 and achieved Diamond certification by the RIAA. Following Flo Rida's 2007 accomplishments, he has released numerous captivating songs that resulted in sales of over 80 million records worldwide, cementing him as one of the world’s top-selling music talents. Flo Rida’s massive popularity is evident through his vast social media following, with over 900,000 followers on Instagram, over 4 million on Twitter, and over 15 million on Facebook, along with an impressive 4 billion music video views on YouTube.

Originating in Sweden around 2004, Celsius is a highly acclaimed vegan energy drink designed to invigorate daily performance. The Celsius drink is devoid of carbohydrates and enriched with various vitamins and natural ingredients, including green tea and ginger. According to Celsius, the fitness energy drink is also proven to boost metabolism and facilitate body fat burning. (Celsius Holdings, Inc.) With its prestige as a prominent player in the $100 billion worldwide energy drink market, PepsiCo acquired an 8.5% stake that totaled the vast sum of $550 million. (Vanjani)

Observing Flo Rida's immense critical acclaim in the music industry and his significant influence on social media platforms, Celsius forged an endorsement partnership with the artist. The partnership deal entailed that Flo Rida would be a brand ambassador for Celsius in exchange for a substantial number of shares and bonuses contingent on sales performance. (Dellato) As a brand ambassador, Flo Rida had the pivotal role of galvanizing Celsius products to remarkable development and expansion that ultimately led to exponential growth in product revenues and the attraction of numerous investors. (Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc. et al. v. Celsius Holdings, Inc.) In 2018, Flo Rida's music video for the song "Hola" showcased a party atmosphere of individuals drinking Celsius that garnered a staggering 137 million viewers. In 2019, a notable music artist, Doja Cat, directly referred to Celsius in an interview as "Flo Rida’s drink.” (Haroun) The senior management at Celsius acknowledged that their collaboration with Flo Rida had effectively introduced their energy drink to the hundreds of millions of potential customers who follow Flo Rida’s music.

Although Celsius had impeccable success after Flo Rida’s endorsement, Flo Rida accused Celsius of mishandling the exact compensation that he was entitled to receive from the contract. This improper handling of compensation prompted Flo Rida to file a lawsuit in the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida that cited multiple infractions, including breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit filed by Flo Rida alleges that Celsius agreed to allocate rights to common stock, some of which were meant to be distributed at the contract’s inception, while additional shares would be issued upon the achievement of designated target sale benchmarks. Despite the evident agreement being ratified, the filed lawsuit asserts that one of the benchmarks in the contract was satisfactorily met unbeknownst to Flo Rida. Analogously, the lawsuit alleges that initial royalties were paid by Celsius, but the corporation failed to provide additional royalties that were owed to Flo Rida after the target number of products sold was satisfied. Similarly, the lawsuit accuses Celsius of utilizing Flo Rida’s name, image, and likeness to unjustly enrich themselves through co-branded products and Flo Rida’s marketing in his brand ambassador role. (Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc. et al. v. Celsius Holdings, Inc.)

In the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, Flo Rida was awarded a vast sum of $82,640,450 in damages following an exhaustive and scrupulous jury trial. Elated by the jury’s decision, Flo Rida proceeded to launch his own energy drink that is aiming to surpass Celsius in terms of health benefits. Flo Rida proclaimed that due to the fact that he inculcated the rise of Celsius from obscurity to notoriety, he is confident in his ability to replicate the success of Celsius and bolster his financial portfolio through his new entrepreneurial endeavor. (Lane)

Ensuring the contentment of brand ambassadors has perpetually posed a challenge for corporations that strive to substantially elevate their financial sustainability. When engaging with celebrities, corporations must recognize that the business and legal landscape is transitioning towards a transparent stock compensation system. Ignoring this evolving environment may leave corporations vulnerable to being outperformed in marketing efforts by more adaptable and innovative competitors who have embraced the industry's evolution.

______________________________________________________________

Celsius Holdings, Inc. About Celsius. April 2004. 22 July 2023.

Dellato, Marisa. Rapper Flo Rida Wins $82 Million In Lawsuit Against Celsius Energy Drinks. 18 January 2023. 22 July 2023.

Haroun, Amzi. Rapper Flo Rida accused Celsius — which Doja Cat called 'Flo Rida's energy drink' — of stiffing him on stock options and bonuses. 5 January 2023. 22 July 2023.

Lane, Barnaby. Rapper Flo Rida awarded $82.6 million after winning lawsuit against energy drink company Celsius. 13 March 2023. 22 July 2023.

Strong Arm Productions USA, Inc. et al. v. Celsius Holdings, Inc. No. CACE-21-008997. The 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida. 4 May 2021.

Vanjani, Karishma. PepsiCo Invests $550 Million in Fitness Energy Drink Company Celsius. Wall Street Likes the Deal. 1 August 2022. 22 July 2023.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

United States v. Holmes

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

July 16, 2023

Elizabeth Anne Holmes was an atypical CEO because she defied the conventional norm of possessing a prestigious master’s in business administration degree. However, Holmes set herself apart through her relentless commitment to the pursuit of excellence, which inculcated a copious number of transformative concepts. Holmes exhibited an unwavering entrepreneurial disposition as she channeled her fervor by embarking on her own business venture in high school by selling C++ compilers that distinctly catered to Chinese schools and higher institutions. (Hartmas and Leskin) Due to the discernable business acumen that Holmes had, she was consequently enrolled in Mandarin lessons that ultimately caused her enrollment in the Stanford University’s esteemed summer Mandarin program. Immediately after graduating high school, Holmes matriculated at Stanford University to study the intricate field of chemical engineering. Concurrently, Holmes was employed as a student researcher at the Stanford School of Engineering and a laboratory assistant at the Genome Institute in Singapore. At the end of her first year at Stanford University, Holmes perceptibly imagined the groundbreaking innovation of a wearable device that could conduct blood tests and administer doses of antibiotics. The visionary innovation of this device ignited Holmes to file the requisite legal procedures to secure a patent, which thereby set in motion the development of the consequential product of Theranos.

The patent for the device that Holmes secured presented a revolutionary, paradigm-shifting, and unprecedented advancement for blood testing within the medical industry. The machinations of taking blood tests are undeniably arduous, costly, and time-consuming. (United States v. Holmes) The multitudinous array of individuals who have undergone blood tests are familiar with the challenges faced by nurses and doctors in their quests to locate a suitable vein, the discomfort of being punctured by an elongated needle, and the significant volume of blood that is extracted from their own bodies. Holmes designed a device called the Edison that was capable of utilizing a few drops of blood to diagnose a plethora of common ailments and severe diseases within a matter of hours. The advent of the Edison presented an opportunity to undoubtedly reduce the cost of blood tests delivered by competitors and the prolonged anxiety associated with waiting for a result of a blood test.

In 2013, Theranos established a strategic alliance with Walgreens to put their blood tests in 42 Arizona stores and one store in California, which included a comprehensive plan to go nationwide contingent upon favorable implementation. (Johnson) By 2014, Holmes had become a prominent figure in business as she graced renowned magazine covers, including Fortune and Forbes, while simultaneously positioning Theranos as a billion-dollar corporation that raised hundreds of millions of dollars in investment capital. (Carreyrou) Analogously, Holmes amassed an impressive collection of 84 patents attributed to her that encompassed 18 patents from the United States and 66 additional patents obtained from various international jurisdictions. (Kim) In 2015, the Edison device garnered FDA approval to specifically test for the herpes affliction following a rigorous evaluation on a sample size of 818 people that proved to have acceptable efficacy. (Food and Drug Administration) The attainment of FDA approval for herpes testing carried immense magnitude for the financial trajectory of Theranos because potential investors were dissuaded from making an investment due to the corporation's keen interest in maintaining the utmost secrecy surrounding the operational mechanics and technological intricacies of the Edison.

Holmes and Theranos adopted a shroud of concealment because of their audacious assertions about the Edison’s capacity to perform over 250 types of tests, which was widely understood among Holmes and company executives to not be the case. In the vicinity of 2015, two employees named Tyler Schultz and Erika Cheung diligently noted the deficiencies in accuracy of the Edison while also uncovering a Siemens machine that was utilized to supplement the tests that the Edison could not deliver. Cheung made a profuse number of futile attempts to alert company executives to her concerns, which provided the basis for her resignation from the corporation and her notifying the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the corporation’s operation. Tyler Shultz, on the other hand, personally admonished Holmes to no avail, prompting him to escalate the matter to his grandfather, a Theranos board member, and the former Secretary of State George Shultz. After speaking with his grandfather, Tyler Shultz was persuaded to resign and sign a confidentiality agreement by members of his own family.

Analogously, in 2015, John Carreyrou, a Wall Street Journal reporter, launched an investigation into the audacious assertions of Theranos by initiating conversations with Schultz and Cheung. After Carreyrou gained all the necessary facts for his investigation, he published a critically acclaimed exposé that was a devastating blow to the integrity of Theranos and culminated in a series of articles that eventually led to the publication of a revealing book.

In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed to prohibit Holmes from owning or operating a laboratory. (Abelson and Pollack) Consequently, Walgreens immediately terminated its partnership with Theranos and filed a lawsuit alleging a contractual breach that was followed by investors, the State of Arizona, and an abundance of patients. (Pflanzer) Subsequently, in 2018, after thorough investigations by the FBI, charges filed by the SEC, and a meticulous 2-year investigation conducted by the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California, a federal grand jury indicted Holmes on nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Following an extensive trial, Holmes was sentenced to 11 years and three months in a federal prison for perpetrating investor fraud of over hundreds of millions of dollars. (United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California)

The implications of Theranos cannot be overstated because it proves to be a comprehensive guide for corporations and businesses on how to market their products and protect themselves from potential public deception. In light of the Theranos case, corporations should galvanize their lawyers to heed legal terminology, scrutinize relevant case precedent, and implement measures to prevent the recurrence of a Theranos-like scenario. Arguably, had lawyers at Theranos been actively involved in the audacious assertions made by Holmes, there would have been an institutional framework in place to thwart such injustices, which could have financially benefited the corporation. Chief Legal Officers and other attorneys serve a vital role beyond being perceived as mere naysayers within a corporation because they are formidable safeguards against potential pitfalls and destructive threats.

______________________________________________________________

Abelson, Reed and Andrew Pollack. Theranos Under Fire as U.S. Threatens Crippling Sanctions. 13 April 2016. 14 July 2023.

Carreyrou, John. Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled With Its Blood-Test Technology. 16 October 2015. 14 July 2023.

Food and Drug Administration. 510(k) Substantial Equivalence Determination Decision Summary. Silver Spring: Food and Drug Administration, 2015.

Hartmas, Avery and Paige Leskin. The Career Rise and Fall of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes. 11 February 2020. 14 July 2023.

Johnson, Carolyn Y. FDA approves Theranos’ $9 finger stick blood test for herpes. 2 July 2015. 14 July 2023.

Kim, Larry. 21 Surprising Facts About Billionaire Entrepreneur Elizabeth Holmes. 1 July 2015. 14 July 2023.

Pflanzer, Lydia Ramsey. Theranos just agreed to refund 175,000 people in Arizona who took its tests. 18 April 2017. 14 July 2023.

United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al. 12 December 2022. 14 July 2023.

United States v. Holmes. No. 5:18-cr-00258-EJD-1. United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 10 January 2023.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Class Action Lawsuit Against Kraft Heinz Foods Company

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

June 22, 2023

In November 2022, Amanda Ramirez and a group of more than 100 plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Company on the grounds that the corporation engaged in deceptive marketing techniques in the sale of the 8-pack microwavable single serve cups of Velveeta Shells & Cheese. The germane evidence of the allegation against Kraft is that the front portion of the box of Velveeta Shells & Cheese contained the phrase “ready in 3½ minutes.” To have a Velveeta Shells & Cheese cup prepared to a palatable standard, the consumer must systematically follow the steps enumerated on the back of the packaging. The steps to preparing a Velveeta Shells & Cheese cup include removing the lid and cheese pouch, adding the water to fill the line of the cup, stirring the mixture, microwaving the mixture uncovered on high for 3½ minutes without draining the water, and stirring the contents of the cheese pouch with the microwaved mixture. Through careful analysis of Velveeta Shells & Cheese, Amanda Ramirez and the other plaintiffs assert that if Kraft wants to make this claim, then they must allow the full product to be assembled and cooked within the 3½-minute time span. Amanda Ramirez and the other plaintiffs proffer the argument that consumers will be misled into believing that the total amount of time for development is from the moment it is unopened to the moment of consumption. (Amanda Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Kraft Heinz Foods Company)

Amanda Ramirez and the other plaintiffs are suing Kraft Heinz Foods Company for $5 million because the plaintiffs suspect that the misrepresentation of the Velveeta Shells & Cheese cup allotted the company the privilege to sell the product at a premium price of no less than $10.99 for the 8-pack box. (Treisman) The $10.99 price point is significantly more expensive than the Kraft Original Easy Microwavable Dinner, Swift Macaroni & Cheese Triple Cheese Microwavable Cups, and Annie’s Macaroni & Cheese White Cheddar, placing Velveeta Shells & Cheese in the upper echelon of the macaroni and cheese microwavable cup industry. Due to the price point being at a luxurious standard, consumers should reasonably expect to receive the greatest satisfaction by guaranteeing the most succulent macaroni and cheese microwavable cup on the market. While the delectable nature of the macaroni and cheese microwavable cup is not disputed, Amanda Ramirez and the other plaintiffs contend that their satisfaction was destroyed when the Kraft Heinz Foods Company distorted the instructions for the Velveeta product. Kraft Heinz Foods Company evidently and completely dismisses the contents of the class action lawsuit as the corporation deems the case as frivolous. (Mendoza)

Kraft Heinz Foods Company insists that the front portion of the box of Velveeta Shells & Cheese contained the phrase “ready in 3½ minutes,” but one can reasonably comprehend that “ready” was pertaining to the microwaving step of the cultivation of the microwavable cup and not the entire process. One can surmise the Kraft argument to be transparent as on the back portion of the box of Velveeta Shells & Cheese there is an unambiguous direction of “MICROWAVE, uncovered, on HIGH 3-1/2 min. DO NOT DRAIN.” (Amanda Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Kraft Heinz Foods Company)

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the governmental proponent of consumer rights, will determine a dispute to be frivolous or irrelevant if the consumer did not provide sufficient information to investigate the disputed information, if the direct dispute is substantially the same as the dispute previously submitted by or on behalf of the consumer, and if the furnisher is not required to investigate the direct dispute. (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Despite the fact that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforces federal consumer financial law, the definition of a frivolous lawsuit tendered by the governmental agency is the most adept illustration of the definition’s practical application. The consensus of legal professionals must employ this definition and application in the determination of the lawsuit against Kraft Heinz Foods Company. Failure to implement adequate ethical, intellectual, and adroit techniques for successfully weeding out frivolity in the legal industry can result in the peril of the economy and the loss of trust in the jurisprudence of the United States. The judgment of the class action lawsuits against Kraft Heinz Foods Company will be monumental for consumer protection laws while instituting a prominent precedent for future generations.

______________________________________________________________

Amanda Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Kraft Heinz Foods Company. United States District Court Southern District of Florida Miami Division. 18 November 2022.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. § 1022.43 Direct disputes. 1 January 2023. 18 May 2023.

Mendoza, Jordan. Kraft Heinz sued by Florida woman claiming Velveeta Shells & Cheese 'ready' time is misleading. 27 November 2022. 18 May 2023.

Treisman, Rachel. A woman sues Kraft, claiming Velveeta macaroni preparation time is misleading. 28 November 2022. 18 May 2023.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Utilization of Lyrics as Evidence

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

June 22, 2023

With the judgment in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the judiciary proves that it is not willing to enforce or conduct a standard of uniformity amongst citizens or encourage groupthink. (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court used a two-pronged speech test where speech can be deemed illegal if the speech is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action.” (Brandenburg v. Ohio) The Brandenburg v. Ohio case perfectly displays the extent to which the First Amendment is willing to cover and protect. Analogously, the founding fathers envisioned a country where you could say anything you wished through “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of abridging the freedom of speech.” (Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute) The First Amendment has been raised in the West Virginia v. Barnette and Brandenburg v. Ohio cases as a way of protecting free speech, but free speech and the First Amendment cover a broader scope that encompasses artistic freedom. Many countries across the world significantly destroy art or persecute graffiti artists, musicians, and painters for engaging in art that oversteps the general limitations that the government sets forth. (Pecot) Fortunately, in the realm of American jurisprudence, the judicial branch makes a considerable effort to combat this by assuring the protected rights of artists through rulings in their favor and by issuing practical limitations on alterations proffered by legislatures. In American jurisprudence, substantive and procedural laws are prevalent in civil and criminal cases. Substantive law is associated with the specific definitions of the law and their implications for society. Procedural law refers to the proceedings of the case and how they are conducted to institute equitable due process. While society tends to be adamant over substantive issues, it should be infuriated over procedural law implications because one cannot expect any substantive law to be impartial when the procedural law is inherently corrupt. As hip-hop lyrics are being cultivated as evidence in court rooms, we are witnessing a society where procedural law is arguably contradicting the First Amendment. Legal scholars, professors, and proponents assert that the use of hip-hop lyrics in court is explicitly dismantling the First Amendment, stripping the First Amendment of its authority, and infringing on the freedom within the precious society of the United States.

Arguably, the scope of the First Amendment should never shrink because our society will only progress with the introduction of artificial intelligence technologies, Web3, and the metaverse. Our society will inquire about the methods by which people should limit their free speech regarding emerging technological innovations. The Supreme Court must inculcate society with a determined and objective standard to prevent the collapse of society, which is an original tenet of the U.S. Constitution. In Miller v. California, the Supreme Court’s now famous test was employed to determine something obscene by the complete and subsuming satisfaction of "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards," would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and finally (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." (Miller v. California) Although Miller v. California has been used in a multitude of cases to benefit an artist, there have also been nefarious and sinister ways that prosecutors, government officials, and authority figures have overtly employed to implement hip-hop lyrics in court as a mechanism of evidence. In American jurisprudence, society tends to be shocked or gasp when they hear a summary judgment or verdict in a case. Society, using that dumfounded or appalled feeling, should be perturbed by the process of gaining the summary judgment or verdict in the case. Society should be baffled by the proceedings of the case, which can involve everything from pretrial discovery to jury selection. The pretrial discovery in a case itself can allow evidence that can prove invaluable in the minds of a jury or judge to render a verdict.

In Atlanta, Jeffery Williams (nicknamed Young Thug), Sergio Kitchens (nicknamed Gunna), and other members of the YSL Enterprise were indicted on the R.I.C.O. (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act. Through Young Thug’s lyrics of "I never killed anybody, but I got something to do with that body," the prosecutors built their case upon these lyrics as their smoking gun evidence. (Lang) Gunna, who was only indicted due to a speeding ticket, was included in the indictment due to his lyrics, "YSL slimy and shady, they ain't wavy like my clique." This indictment sets a dangerous precedent because rappers will be in constant fear of reprisals from prosecutors. Analogously, the fear of reprisals and the limitations on lyrics will discharge the alluring effect of hip-hop’s nature. Johnny Cash once made a song named "Folsom Prison Blues" that had the lyrics "but I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die." (Genius) The result of Johnny Cash singing the Folsom Prison Blues resulted in no indictment whatsoever and critical acclaim that amassed him 15 Grammy awards. (Pecot) Although the employment of lyrics in court is erratic, perhaps the most egregious use of lyrics in court belongs to the case involving Vonte Skinner. In New Jersey v. Skinner, Vonte Skinner was charged and convicted of attempted murder and other charges because a state witness was allowed to read hip-hop lyrics that were finally used as evidence against Vonte Skinner. (New Jersey v. Skinner) The prosecutor in the case ended up applying 13 pages of violent lyrics that did not include the victim or material aspects related to the crime Skinner was accused of. (Kubrin and Nielson) The Supreme Court, in their reasoning, ruled that the evidence of the lyrics constituted "highly prejudicial evidence against Skinner" and that the hip-hop lyrics could be used to besmirch the jury’s judgment. (New Jersey v. Skinner) Although iniquitous prosecutors believe in exploiting the lyrics as an "I caught them red-handed" moment, the Supreme Court does not agree and will reverse the decisions of inferior courts that deem such lyrics material to the case.

One of the most prevalent arguments for utilizing rap lyrics in court is to combat crime. When one uses this argument, one must first understand who the lyrics are used against, how material the lyrics are to a case, and how often the lyrics are used as evidence. In the overwhelming majority of cases involving the use of lyrics as evidence, there tends to be a focus on the artistic genre of hip-hop. When Bob Marley sang of how "he shot the sheriff" or how Edgar Allan Poe composed of how he "buried a man beneath his floorboards," no reasonable prosecutor sought charges against these artists. (Manly) When lyrics that are emotionally jarring are used as sole or prolific evidence throughout the entirety of the case, the jury can only be "poisoned" and clouded in their judgment of the defendant. (Pecot) The Supreme Court agrees while also determining that the rap lyrics themselves are inherently protected by the First Amendment as the lyrics are considered artistic expression.

______________________________________________________________

Brandenburg v. Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court. 9 June 1969.

Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. 1992. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment>.

Genius. Genius. 15 December 1955. <https://genius.com/Johnny-cash-folsom-prison-blues-lyrics>.

Kubrin, Charis E and Erik Nielson. Rap Lyrics on Trial. 13 January 2014. <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/opinion/rap-lyrics-on-trial.html>.

Lang, Cady. What to Know About Young Thug’s Trial and the Controversial Use of Rap Lyrics in Criminal Cases. 29 June 2022. <https://time.com/6192371/young-thug-rap-lyrics-evidence-court/>.

Manly, Lorne. New Jersey High Court Rules Lyrics Inadmissible in Rapper’s Case. 4 August 2014. <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/05/arts/music/new-jersey-high-court-rules-lyrics-inadmissible-in-rappers-case.html>.

Miller v. California. U.S. Supreme Court. 21 June 1973.

New Jersey v. Skinner. No. A-5365-14T2. Superior Court of New Jersey. 29 November 2017.

Pecot, Emily. Using Rap Lyrics as Evidence in Court. 15 February 2023. <https://njsbf.org/2023/02/15/using-rap-lyrics-as-evidence-in-court/>.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. U.S. Supreme Court. 14 June 1943.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Implications Of The Largest Whistleblower Award In SEC History

By Theodros Fekade, University of Miami Class of 2024

May 16, 2023

In March of 1863, Congress passed the Federal Claims Act to counter the sale of defective ammunition and other supplies needed by the Union Army during the Civil War. Despite the Federal Claims Act remaining relatively dormant for over 117 years, the inducement of the Federal Claims Act burgeoned in its emergence during the Cold War. During the Cold War as resources were spread incredibly thin, the largest defense contractors started to inflate prices intentionally and egregiously for products requested by the Pentagon in a plethora of contracts from 1975 to 1984. The Department of Defense were unconventionally billed for inflated prices for items including $37 screws, $214 flashlights, or $437 tape measures. (Smith) To intimidate corporations from committing fraud against the government, Congress amended the False Claims Act in 1986 by esclating penalties against companies who defraud the government from double to triple the damages with an additional fine of $5,000 to $10,000 for each false claim submitted while also incentivizing lawyers to use their own resources during their investigations. (Piacentile, Stefanowski & Malherbe LLP d/b/a Whistleblowers International) Although the Federal Claims Act evidently utilized for discouraging fraud committed by defense contractors, the judgment of Franklin v. Parke Davis presented an application of the Federal Claims Act in the healthcare industry. The application of the Federal Claims Act was employed to dismantle the fraudulent scheme of selling the drug Neurontin for uses other than those approved by the Food and Drug Administration causing deceptive claims to be submitted to the Veterans Administration and other healthcare authorities. (United States of America ex rel. David Franklin v. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Company) Subsequently after the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007, legislators, economists, and the general public demanded intricate regulation of Wall Street prompting the adoption of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and cultivation of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Whistleblower. Through the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Whistleblower, anonymous or identified individuals can be rewarded for high quality information about criminal activities and any violation of the securities laws of United States. (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission)

The collage of federal governmental agencies cherishes whistleblowers and will incite potential whistleblowers with promises of protection and lucrative capital. According to former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, “whistleblowers make important contributions to the enforcement of securities laws…we are committed to getting more money to whistleblowers as quickly and as efficiently as possible.” (Cassidy) Although Clayton’s philosophy is disputable, there is compelling evidence of an increasing number of whistleblowers when settlements are extremely profitable. In the fiscal year of 2022, the Department of Justice witnessed the second highest number of settlements in history when settlements exceeded $2.2 billion. (The United States Department of Justice) Prior to May 2023, the largest individual reward that was paid to a whistleblower totaled $114 million more than doubling the next highest reward. (Cassidy) One can surmise that the monetary commissions being double will inevitably galvanize an elevation to the already boosted number of whistleblowers and allot governmental agencies with an adroit mechanism for enforcement.

While the whistleblower rewards can reach unfathomable pinnacles, the rewards are not distributed arbitrarily to the individual. Whistleblowers can be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide the Securities and Exchange Commission with original, timely, and credible information through mechanisms including multiple interviews and written submissions that lead to a successful enforcement action with the individual adhering to the adequate filing requirements. The payments that the Securities and Exchange Commission makes to whistleblowers is made from an investor protection fund that is established by Congress. Congress bankrolls the investor protection fund through the monetary sanctions that are paid to the Securities and Exchange Commission by the criminal violators. Analogously, whistleblowers may receive a range of 10 to 30% of the money collected when monetary sanctions exceed $1 million. (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) On May 5, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it distributed the largest award in SEC history totaling around $279 million. Gurbir S. Grewal, the director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement, considers this payment as a reflection of the tremendous success of the SEC whistleblower program. Enforcement of securities law can benefit the SEC in its establishment of trust while encouraging investor confidence and security. Grewal asserts that the success of the SEC whistleblower program “directly benefits investors, as whistleblower tips have contributed to enforcement actions resulting in orders requiring bad actors to disgorge more than $4 billion in ill-gotten gains and interest.”  (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) The fervent declaration of Director Grewal proves that the implementation of whistleblowers in investigations will be utilized in the future of law involving legal cases including securities, health, and corporate law.

______________________________________________________________

Cassidy, Daniel. Whistleblower Awarded Over $114 Million By SEC. 22 October 2020. 15 May 2023.

Piacentile, Stefanowski & Malherbe LLP d/b/a Whistleblowers International. Whistleblowing History Overview. 6 July 2022. 15 May 2023.

Smith, Jack. $37 screws, a $7,622 coffee maker, $640 toilet seats; : suppliers to our military just won’t be oversold. 30 July 1986. 15 May 2023.

The United States Department of Justice. False Claims Act Settlements and Judgments Exceed $2 Billion in Fiscal Year 2022. 7 February 2023. 15 May 2023.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Office of the Whistleblower. 11 April 2023. 15 May 2023.

—. SEC Issues Largest-Ever Whistleblower Award . 5 May 2023. 15 May 2023.

United States of America ex rel. David Franklin v. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Company. No. 96-CV-11651-PBS. United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 25 June 2001.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Juvenile Law and the Supreme Court Cases That Gave Them Rights

By Miranda Rider, University of Tampa Class of 2022

September 30, 2021

Juvenile Law has been around since the late 1800’s in hopes to reform policies that the US had regarding youth [1]. This movement was created during the progressive era of social reform. Before this, juveniles as young as seven were imprisoned with adults [1]. Since then, the rights of juveniles in the US court system have evolved. There has been a plethora of court cases that were landmarks in terms of their rights, but few have made as large of an impact as the cases discussed below.

In re Gault (1967)

In re Gault refers to the 1966 case of Gerard Gault who had been accused of making lewd and lascivious calls to his neighbor. The witness, the neighbor who claimed that he had made these calls, did not show up at two hearings. Even without the witness, the judge declared Gault to be delinquent and ordered he stay in detention until the age of 21 [2].

Ultimately, it was decided that Gault’s 14th amendment had been violated stating that “absent a valid confession, a determination of delinquency and an order of commitment to a state institution cannot be sustained in the absence of sworn testimony subjected to the opportunity for cross-examination” [2]

In re Gault was the first time the Supreme Court declared that juveniles have many of the same rights adults do in a criminal court. They could have the right to an attorney, and most importantly, the right to a full hearing regarding the legitimacy of their case.

In re Winship (1970)

In 1969, 12-year-old Samuel Winship was accused and charged with delinquency for entering a locker and stealing $112 dollars from a woman. The charge also stated that had this act been committed by an adult, the act of delinquency would be considered an act of larceny. The court judge acknowledged that although the proof against the boy doesn’t establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the state statute “adjudicated him delinquent by a preponderance of evidence” [3]

The case went all the way to the supreme court, and after examining In re Gault as a precedent, reversed the decision. They held that “for adjudications of delinquency, the standard of proof required is the same as for criminal cases” [4]

Roper V. Simmons (2005)

In perhaps the most important supreme court decision to come out of the last several decades, Christopher Simmons committed capital murder at the age of 17. He was tried, and subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death. Simmons argued that his sentence violated the 8th amendment, as it was cruel and unusual punishment to sentence an 18-year-old to death [5].

In the supreme court’s decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy was appalled by Missouri’s attempt to sentence Simmons to death. He states that “Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit ‘a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them ‘the most deserving of executions’’ [5]. Justice Kennedy goes on to explain that there are three general differences between juveniles and adults that demonstrate juveniles cannot be held to the same standards as Adults.

“A lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility… juveniles are more susceptible or vulnerable to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure… and the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult” [5]

This was the first supreme court decision that challenged the fact that juveniles and adults should be treated the same because of mental development. Juveniles are still developing mentally, therefore they’re more prone to make wrong decisions and shouldn’t be treated the same as adults who ideally know right from wrong.

In a final statement given by Justice Kennedy, he explains that “these differences render suspect any conclusion that any juvenile falls among the worst offenders” [5]

Graham V. Florida (2010)

The supreme court decision of Graham V. Florida was heavily influenced by Roper V. Simmons. Terrence Graham, while 16, committed armed burglary as well as another crime. The state of Florida sentenced him to probation, but later stated that he violated the terms of his probation by committing another crime. They revoked his probation and sentenced him to life without parole for the original burglary [6]

While delivering the opinion of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the court’s opinion on the Roper V. Simmons case, stated that “Roper established that because juveniles have lessened culpability, they are less deserving of the most severe punishments” [6]

The court argued that defendants who “do not kill, intend to kill, or foresee that life will be taken are categorically less deserving of the most serious forms of punishment than are murders” [7]

Graham did not intend to kill an individual when he and his friends committed the burglary therefore he shouldn’t be sentenced to the most severe form of imprisonment, life without the possibility of parole.

Because of juveniles lessened culpability and the higher chances they have at reforming compared to adults; the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to give a juvenile a life without parole sentence for a nonhomicide case.

Although there are many more cases that have evolved the juvenile justice system from what it was, these decisions are still considered landmark cases decades after the decision had been made.

______________________________________________________________

Miranda Rider is a Senior Criminology and Criminal Justice major at the University of Tampa. Her passions include juvenile law and family law but she’s interested in all things criminal justice related.

______________________________________________________________

[1] We Are IMPACT LAW. (2021). History of the Juvenile Justice System. San Diego.

[2] In re Gault, 387 U.S (The Supreme Court May 15, 1967). Retrieved from NDJC.info: https://njdc.info/practice-policy-resources/united-states-supreme-court-juvenile-justice-jurisprudence/in-re-gault/ (In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), n.d.)

[3] In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970). (n.d.). Retrieved from Civil Liberties in the United States: https://uscivilliberties.org/cases/3967-in-re-winship-397-us-358-1970.html

[4] In re Winship, 397 U.S (The Supreme Court March 31st, 1970).

[5] Roper V. Simmons, 03-655 (The Supreme Court March 1, 2005).    

[6] Graham V. Florida, 08-7412 (The Supreme Court May 17, 2010).

[7] Juvenile Sentencing Project. (2021). Overview of U.S Supreme Court Decisions. Retrieved from juvenilesentencingproject.org: https://juvenilesentencingproject.org/us-supreme-court-decisions/

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Simone Biles Withdraws From Olympic Individual All-Around Competition

By John Famiglietti, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 28, 2021

Early Wednesday morning Simone Biles was seen doing something she had never done before. Arguably the greatest gymnast of all time was seen exiting the floor during the first rotation of the team final for team USA. The world wondered what could be the problem as some speculated that she had been injured on her previous vault in which she was set to attempt to do 2.5 twists, but only managed to pull off 1.5 with an awkward landing [1]. However, Simone did not limp or show any other signs she had been injured in the run, leaving viewers to question what was actually going on as she packed up her bag and left the floor. Simone was facing a battle that was unseen from the spectators, her mental health was not up to the immense challenge of being the workhorse of the nation with expectations nothing short of perfection, also saying on Monday that she felt the “weight of the world” on her shoulders [2]. Added pressure as being one of the last solidified household names with the retirement of olympic athletes Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt. At the end of the competition the United States of America received a silver medal coming behind the Russian Olympic Committee. “Once I came out here [to compete], I was like, 'No, mental is not there, so I just need to let the girls do it and focus on myself”’ Simone said in a statement after the competition [1]. Simone told the Associated Press “We also have to focus on ourselves, because at the end of the day, we're human, too. We have to protect our mind and our body, rather than just go out there and do what the world wants us to do” [2]. A statement from Simone’s social media read “I know I brush it off and make it seem like pressure doesn't affect me but damn sometimes it's hard hahaha! The olympics is no joke!" she wrote. "BUT I'm happy my family was able to be with me virtually🤍 they mean the world to me!” [3].  “After further medical evaluation, Simone Biles has withdrawn from the final individual all-around competition at the Tokyo Olympic Games, in order to focus on her mental health. We wholeheartedly support Simone's decision and applaud her bravery in prioritizing her well-being. Her courage shows, yet again, why she is a role model for so many”, The United States of America gymnastics team said in a statement on Wednesday [1]. The 24 year old was physically in the best shape of her life qualifying for the finals on all four apparatuses, something she didn't even do during her five-medal haul at the Rio de Janeiro Games in 2016 [1]. Gold medal hopes seem at an all time low as Jade Carey will now take Biles’ place in the individual all-around competition Thursday, Jade qualified 9th for the individual all-around earlier.

Simone’s decision to walk away for mental health follows a trend of athletes who feel the pressure to perform is not worth the spoils of victory. Number 2 women’s tennis player in the world Naomi Osaka stepped away from the French open and withdrew herself from the Wimbledon this year to focus on her mental health as well.  Michael Phelps commented on his thoughts of the situation saying “I hope this is an eye-opening experience, I really do. I hope this is an opportunity for us to jump on board and to even blow this mental health thing even more wide open. It is so much bigger than we could even ever imagine,” Phelps said. “This is something that’s gonna take a lot of time, a lot of hard work and people who are willing to help” [3].

______________________________________________________________

[1] Maine, D. A. (2021, July 28). Simone Biles withdraws from INDIVIDUAL all-around gymnastics competition at Tokyo Olympics to focus on mental well-being. ESPN. https://www.espn.com/olympics/gymnastics/story/_/id/31902290/simone-biles-withdraws-individual-all-competition-tokyo-olympics-focus-mental-health.

[2]Silva, D. (2021, July 27). 'We're human, too': Simone biles highlights importance of mental health in OLYMPICS WITHDRAWAL. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/olympics/we-re-human-too-simone-biles-highlights-importance-mental-health-n1275224.

[3]Dragon, T. (2021, July 28). 'The Olympics IS OVERWHELMING': Michael Phelps says he can relate to Simone biles' situation in Tokyo. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2021/07/27/michael-phelps-reacts-simone-biles-gymnastics-team-event-withdrawal/5397177001/.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Currently developing Wildfires on the West Coast of the U.S.

By John Famiglietti, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 23, 2021

The west coast of the United States is experiencing two major wildfires that are growing at exponential rates threatening homes, buildings, forests, and the lives of those that call these places home. These fires are coming at a time when the majority of the coast is also experiencing major droughts and heat waves making these fires spread more easily and faster throughout all times of the day and night. One fire just south of Lake Tahoe in California called The Tamarack Fire started on the fourth of July and has been growing exponentially since. This fire is said to have started from a bolt of lightning in the area which ignited dry forest. Over the past few days this fire has grown at an extremely concerning rate from 500 acres to 1,600 acres, to 6,600 acres and currently over 21,000 acres [1]. Activities in nearby areas have been canceled including the 103 mile “Death Ride extreme bike race through the Sierra Nevada, all competitors were ordered to clear the area leaving thousands of people stranded in small towns now racing to get to safety [1]. Kelli Pennington and her family were camping in the area when they first saw smoke developing in the mountains and were caught off guard by the speed of the fires' progression causing them to flee to safety [1].  Pennington said. “It happened so fast. We left our tents, hammock and some foods, but we got most of our things, shoved our two kids in the car and left” [1]. Those living nearby have been under a mandatory evacuation and more recently additional evacuations of The Alpine Village and Woodfords areas have been made. As of Saturday evening there were over 120 personnel working to stop the Tamarack Fire. According to Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest officials, the fire is active on all flanks and exhibiting high rates of spread as it burns timber and bush. It has destroyed at least 3 structures [2].

Meanwhile, in Southern Oregon near the California state line resides the largest wildfire currently in the United States and is being called The Bootleg Fire. This wildfire has also been progressing rapidly, being recorded to move 4 to 5 miles every day [3]. The southern Oregon fire has been attributed to stem from extremely dry conditions along with heat waves tied to climate change. Experts also warn that even drier and hotter conditions are to come as climate change worsens [3]. Crews working to stop the spread have been seeing conditions of “fire clouds which rise up to 6 miles above the blaze sustaining its spread [3]. So far the fire has destroyed 67 homes and 117 buildings [3]. Another 5,000 buildings are also threatened by whichever way the fire turns next whilst over 2,000 residents have been forced to evacuate [4]. The blaze is 377 square miles, larger than the city of New York and is also expected to merge with a smaller fire by Saturday night [4]. “We have had record heat, and just all the worst possible conditions at one time,” Suzanne Flory, a US Forest Service spokesperson, told the Oregonian newspaper [4]. Scientists asked about the subject of these recent stronger heat waves, stating that they would have been virtually impossible without human caused climate change. 

______________________________________________________________

[1]CBS San Francisco. (2021, July 17). UPDATE: Tamarack Fire Explodes to 21,000 Acres; Zero Containment; 'It Happened So Fast'. CBS San Francisco. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/07/17/tamarack-fires-wall-of-flames-closing-in-on-markleeville/.

[2]Wilkins, T. (2021, July 17). Rapidly growing Tamarack Fire in California prompts evacuations; bike race canceled. USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/07/17/fire-california-spreads-tamarack-fire-prompts-evacuations/8003312002/.

[3]Press, T. A. (2021, July 18). California fire prompts evacuations; Oregon blaze balloons. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-fire-prompts-evacuations-oregon-blaze-balloons-n1274287.

[4]Al Jazeera. (2021, July 17). Unstable weather to fuel Oregon blaze that is now larger than NYC. Climate News | Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/7/17/unstable-weather-to-fuel-oregon-blaze-that-is-larger-than-nyc.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

“Eye of Fire” in The Gulf of Mexico

By John Famiglietti, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 23, 2021

On July 2nd a lightning storm off the coast of Mexico ignited a gas fire on the water. This spectacle sent news outlets and environmentalists to display their opinions on the incident. The incident was dubbed the “Eye of Fire” by media journalists and social media users for its horrific sight of fire burning on top of the Gulf of Mexico. The fire has been reported to have started at 5:15 a.m. local time Friday off the coast of Campeche, west of the Yucatan Peninsula. Subsequently, the fire was put out by 10:45 a.m. local time, no injuries or evacuations of the facility have been reported [1].The company responsible for the fire is the Mexican state run Pemex. The platform where the incident occured is Pemex's flagship Ku Maloob Zaap oil development, the company's most important platform responsible for over 40% of the companies oil [2]. The direct and indirect causes of the fire have been speculated to stem from lack of maintenance at the site leading to a possible unknown leak ignited by lighting and the incident being completely caused by a strike of lightning. Pemex claimed the latter and environmentalists claimed the former due to a long history of Pemex oil leaks,spills, and other accidents. There has been an average of 17.4 spills of oil and other chemicals accidentally released from oil and gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico in each of the last five years; the overwhelming majority of such spills rarely make the news. This metric brings questions of the environmental efficacy of oil coming out of Mexico along with the media's coverage of these incidents [3].

Greenpeace, a Mexican environmentalist group claims that lack of steps to avoid leaks on ageing, poorly maintained infrastructure lead to the recent “ecocide” of toxic properties and climate impacts of the leak and fire [4]. Pablo Ramirez, an energy and climate campaigner for Greenpeace Mexico, says that “it was impossible to calculate the carbon footprint of the gas leak because there is no public information about the amount of gas usually transported by the pipeline”[4]. He also described this lack of transparency to be “very problematic” [4]. Greenpeace also noted the detrimental effect leaking pollutants can have on wildlife. “The gas can rapidly penetrate the bodies of fish, doing direct damage to gills, skin, chemoreceptors and eyes, and filling up the gas bladder, making the fish unable to control its buoyancy, shellfish are also killed by exposure to gas” said Ramriez [4].  The political leadership of Mexico appears to have turned a blind eye to the environmental accidents of the past with Mexico’s president Andrés Manuel López Obrador investing heavily in fossil fuel production saying “the best business in the world” whilst downplaying the future need for renewable energy sources [4]. The sad truth of Pemex is that they are state owned and operated with close ties to the government and no investor pressure enabling malpractices to take place. One of the only foreseeable solutions to this problem is increasing the political pressure of Canada and The United States to push Mexico to quite literally clean up its act.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Wang, P. (2021, July 5). 'Eye of fire' that erupted in Gulf of Mexico is under control, says Mexico-owned oil company. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/03/americas/gulf-of-mexico-fire-intl/index.html.

[2]Adriana Barrera, M. P. (2021, July 2). 'Eye of fire' in Mexican waters snuffed out, says national oil company. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/fire-offshore-pemex-platform-gulf-mexico-under-control-2021-07-02/.

[3]Erik Cordes, P. D. (2021, July 9). The 'Eye of Fire' in the Gulf and a path forward away from fossil fuels. TheHill. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/562074-the-eye-of-fire-in-the-gulf-and-a-path-forward-away-from-fossil?rl=1.

[4]Gerretsen, I. (2021, July 9). Ocean fire exposes weak regulation of Mexico's oil and gas sector. Climate Home News. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/07/07/ocean-fire-exposes-weak-regulation-mexicos-oil-gas-sector/.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Largest Modern Trade Sanction

By Hannah Marie Marose, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 23, 2021

The United States of America and Cuba have long had rocky relations, with restrictions in place for travelling between the two countries and a large economic standstill. This all began due to political unrest in Cuba that turned into ruling by dictators with little respect for human life, whether it be Cuban, American, or any individual. The Cuban government since 1961 has been a Communist state after a long period of collapse (Kästle). At this point, an embargo was placed by America after the leaders of the country decided not to provide access to guns or other goods to the country. President John F. Kennedy was the president to declare the trade embargo, something that has remained in place until this day (Kästle). Tensions between the United States and Cuba continued to be uneasy over the years after Cuban Missile Crisis which led into the Cold War. Cubans support of the Soviet Union and Anti-American policies led to more hate between the two. Legally, the sanctions in America restrict trade, but have differed over the years due to different President’s foreign affair policies.

The beginning of the embargo was a full declaration of stopping of trade between the countries. This lost Cuba approximately 130 billion over the next sixty years, due to the country’s immense reliance on trade with the United States (Timeline: U.S.-Cuba Relations). Over the next twenty years there was a large influx of Cubans to America, as past presidents realized the dire circumstances that Cubans were facing living under the Castro rule. However, restrictions on trade did not differ much at these points, where the Presidents thought there was more power in allowing Cubans to flee the dictator ruling their country. In 1992, the restrictions became even tighter with the United States prohibiting foreign subsidiaries of the United States businesses from trading with Cuba and limiting U.S. currency traded with Cuba (Timeline: U.S.-Cuba Relations). This act had profound impacts on both countries. The largest sanction named Helms Burton Act was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. This penalized foreign countries from doing business with Cuba, only to be taken out of law when the Castro brothers were not in office (Timeline: U.S.-Cuba Relations). President Obama’s time in office showed a different period, with a relinquishing of strong penalties in place. There even was a move towards allowing many to visit Cuba for educational and humanitarian reasons.

Overall, these acts have had significant impacts on Cuban and American relations. Recently, in the news there have been report after report of large protests breaking out in Cuba. Cubans are tired of the corrupt government that has been ruling them for over 60 years (Porterfield). After large injustices which were magnified by the global pandemic, Cubans have seemed to finally rally up forces to fight for justice. Across social media, people have taken to writing their thoughts and prayers for Cubans (Porterfield). Many have wondered if the United States embargo has had negative consequences on these people in their current situation. However, through large amounts of research, it is shown that the United States has taken away economic trade with the country due to a want for better political structure in the country which would result in better human rights for Cubans.

______________________________________________________________

Hannah Marose is a Criminology major at Florida State University who will be pursuing a Juris Doctorate at St. John’s University in Fall of 2021. Her legal interests are in family and juvenile law and she hopes to be an advocate for criminal justice reform in her legal career.

______________________________________________________________

Kästle, Klaus. “History of Cuba.” History of Cuba - Nations Online Project, www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/History/Cuba-history.htm.

Porterfield, Carlie. “Here's Why Cubans Are Protesting-And Why The U.S. Response Is So Important.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 12 July 2021, www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/07/12/heres-why-cubans-are-protesting---and-why-the-us-response-is-so-important/?sh=6f27e76461ec.

Sesin, Carmen. “In Protests and on Social Media, Calls Grow against Cuban Govt's Detentions, Arrests.” NBCNews.com, NBCUniversal News Group, 15 July 2021, www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/protests-social-media-calls-grow-cuban-govts-detentions-arrests-rcna1413.

“Timeline: U.S.-Cuba Relations.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org/timeline/us-cuba-relations.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

Netflix’s Legal Battles

By Hannah Marie Marose, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 8, 2021

Legal battles ensue on many ends for the streaming service Netflix which has a multitude of TV shows and movies for a monthly subscription fee. States are currently angered that the company has not had to pay a fee for being a “video service provider” and are suing for million dollar settlements. Furthermore, many people have been angered by Netflix’s portrayal of them in documentaries that have gotten national attention. Also, other shows have been taken off the site due to lawsuits about their appropriateness.

Netflix, Hulu, and other streaming services have become similar to Cable TV, without the cable. Options such as Hulu Live TV allow you to pick a bundle of TV shows to choose from and operate your computer basically as a television. Netflix and other streaming services have similar features which has made cable TV kind of look like a thing of the past. However, what these streaming services are lacking is paying the cable fee to state governments that Verizon, Optimum, and other cable networks have been paying for so long. Many states are wanting these streaming services to pay up and have joined a multitude of class action lawsuits which are demanding to be paid. Texas, Indiana, Georgia, Arkansas, and Nevada are just some of the states in which local towns are demanding payment (Robertson). The battle will continue to play out in court, but Netflix could be in big trouble if it needs to hand out settlements. More and more states have jumped on board and followed suit and will probably continue to do so.

Americans love controversial topics in TV shows and movies, especially relating to drugs, sex, and crime. Has Netflix taken it too far this time though? Right now there are multiple legal issues the popular streaming service is facing due to their controversial documentaries “Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich” and “Central Park 5”. Jeffrey Epstein has long interested the public with his lavish lifestyle and friendship with many celebrities. In this documentary his horrible, illegal past with young girls he paid off is revealed. Epstein’s former attorney is calling the documentary a one sided narrative and claiming it was an extremely unfair portrayal of all (Day). In Central Park 5, the prosecutor in the case was portrayed as someone who had a disregard for any sort of truth and just used racist actions to achieve a conviction for five young black teens. Linda Fairstein, the prosecutor in the case claims that she was defamed and made to look like a ruthless villain (ABC News). She also goes on to claim that the documentary is showing her as responsible for more aspects of the case than she really was.

A final reason Netflix is in hot water is another documentary that was pulled from the streaming service called “Cuties”. This documentary featured young children dancing in short clothing exposing their midriffs (Alexander). The documentary was supposed to be in opposition to the hypersexualization of children, but has since been criticized for its appropriateness. Netflix has taken the documentary down and issued an apology. However, a Texas town has taken upon itself to actually file a criminal case against Netflix claiming that it had a lewd representation of children and could qualify as pornographic content (Alexander).

The company has been in a lot of hot water due to its choice of which documentaries to broadcast and avoiding some types of taxes that may be necessary in the future.

______________________________________________________________

Hannah Marose is a Criminology major at Florida State University who will be pursuing a Juris Doctorate at St. John’s University in Fall of 2021. Her legal interests are in family and juvenile law and she hopes to be an advocate for criminal justice reform in her legal career.

______________________________________________________________

ABC News, ABC News Network, abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/prosecutor-sues-netflix-central-park-series-69690305.

Alexander, Bryan. “Netflix Charged with Promoting Lewdness in 'Cuties.' So What Happens next?” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 19 Oct. 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/10/15/netflix-cuties-controversy-texas-indictment-what-happens-now/3645613001/.

Day, Nate. “Netflix Being Sued over Jeffrey Epstein Docuseries by Financier's Former Attorney.” Fox Business, Fox Business, 27 May 2021, www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/netflix-sued-over-jeffrey-epstein-docuseries-former-attorney.

Robertson, Adi. “The Fight to Make Netflix and Hulu Pay Cable Fees.” The Verge, The Verge, 20 Jan. 2021, www.theverge.com/2021/1/20/22238785/georgia-lawsuit-netflix-hulu-cable-franchise-fees-video-service.

Unsplash. “Netflix Pictures: Download Free Images on Unsplash.” Pictures | Download Free Images on Unsplash, unsplash.com/s/photos/netflix.

[floridaprelaw-blog]

The Champlain Towers Collapse

By John Famiglietti, Florida State University Class of 2021

July 8, 2021

A condominium named Champlain Towers in Miami, Florida partially collapsed. The condominium was home to many residents who lived peacefully, but at around 1:30 A.M. that all changed. The overwhelming majority of residents were asleep inside when the building began to crumble. An estimated 55 condominiums fell to the ground from the 11 story building [1]. Sadly however, the horrific accident continues as rescue teams search through the rubble for survivors of the collapse. As of now, there are 5 dead 120 accounted for and 159 unaccounted for since the accident [2]. A fire also lies underneath the rubble creating "incredible difficulties" to search efforts, "It's a very deep fire. It's extremely difficult to locate the source of the fire. So, they've been working around the clock, these fire rescue teams, these brave men and women, under the rubble to fix this problem so they can get on, but it is hampering our search efforts,"says Daniella Levine Cava, Miami-Dade Mayor [1].

She also detailed that the smoke from the fire is also spreading laterally making it harder to locate the source and put it to rest, also stating "We're using everything possible to address this fire. We are using infrared technology. We're using foam. We're using water. All the tactics that we can to contain the fire and minimize the smoke spread" [1]. The other towers still standing have been evacuated as well to protect residents in the scenario that they also collapse. Family and friends of those unaccounted for continue to hope and pray for either closure or success in finding their loved ones alive. Michelle Gurra, daughter of one of the residents, has not heard from her father or stepmother since the collapse states “We’re doing our best to stay hopeful. That’s what they would want,” she said over Facebook Messenger on Saturday. “This is all so horrific and bizarre. They are both such caring, hard working people. They only got married late 2017 and have been living it up like two teenagers in love, traveling the world and eating all they can together. They lived a full time together"[1].

A son of missing resident Judy Spiegel said "As a doctor, I've taken care of a lot of burn patients and trauma patients, and this is not good. And I'm scared to death. I just want my mom back. And we're praying as much as possible. We just want more people to help. So, if there's anyone else that can help, that's all that we want. We love my mom. She's the most amazing person in the world. We would literally do anything because we know that she would do anything for us"[1]. As the country tries to answer the question of if this could have been avoided a 2018 structural report has surfaced. In the report were details of “ Abundant cracking and spalling of various degrees was observed in the concrete columns, beams and walls. Several sizable spalls were noted in both the topside of the entrance drive ramp and underside of the pool/ entrance drive/ planter slabs, which included instances with exposed, deteriorating rebar. Though some of this damage is minor, most of the concrete deterioration needs to be repaired in a timely fashion.”, also included details of previously repaired areas failing [1].  President Joe Biden sent his thoughts and prayers to those affected by the collapse tweeting  “ My heart is with the community of Surfside as they grieve their lost loved ones and wait anxiously as search and rescue efforts continue. Yesterday I spoke with Gov. DeSantis to let him know that we are ready to provide assistance as needed by state and local officials” [3]. Florida's Governor Ron Desantis gave a statement of hope saying there is still opportunity to find survivors, that rescue teams have made contact with some of them, and that reuse workers heard sounds and bangs coming from the rubble possibly indicating more survivors lie underneath [4].    

______________________________________________________________

 [1] Chowdhury, M., Rahim, Z., & Elassar, A. (2021, June 26). Florida building collapse near Miami: Live updates. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/miami-florida-building-collapse-06-26-21-intl/index.html.

[2]Fieldstadt, E., & Talmazan, Y. (2021, June 25). 99 missing, 10 hurt and 1 dead in high-rise collapse near Miami Beach, officials say. NBCNews.com.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rescuers-rush-partial-building-collapse-miami-beach-n1272216.

[3] English, A. S. (2021, June 27). Miami condo collapse live updates from Surfside: causes, survivors, victims: Latest news. AS.com. https://en.as.com/en/2021/06/27/latest_news/1624791347_718172.html.

[4] Mazzei, P., & Fausset, R. (2021, June 24). Harrowing Condo Collapse Near Miami Prompts Frantic Search for Survivors. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/us/miami-building-collapse-survivors.html.