TITLE: The Eichmann Trial
AUTHOR: Deborah E. Lipstadt
PUBLICATION DATE: March 2011
TITLE: The Eichmann Trial
AUTHOR: Deborah E. Lipstadt
PUBLICATION DATE: March 2011
Network Neutrality (Net neutrality) is a principle that expresses the concept that all Internet traffic must be treated equally regardless of possible economic and other incentives to do otherwise. The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) strongly supports Net neutrality and is a member of Save the Internet Coalition and the Open Internet, both working to bring together individuals, non-profit organizations, businesses, and bloggers who strongly support this priciple.
As part of its leadership role in raising and clarifying issues related to Network Neutrality, AALL prepared a Newwork Neutrality Issue Brief, published in December 2008. Since that time there has been sufficient debate, discussion, rule changes (both actual and proposed), and litigation surrounding this issue to make it necessary for AALL to update its 2008 Network Neutrality Issue Brief, resulting the 2011 AALL Network Neturalty Issue Brief linked to below.
Source: The Internet Society Newsletter Volume 10 Number 1 January 2011.
On 28 January, Lynn St.Amour President and CEO, and the Internet Society Board of Trustees issued a statement on the Egypt’s Internet shutdown:
“We are following the current events in Egypt with concern as it appears that all incoming and outgoing Internet traffic has been disrupted. The Internet Society believes that the Internet is a global medium that fundamentally supports opportunity, empowerment, knowledge, growth, and freedom and that these values should never be taken away from individuals.
Richard Zorza has reminded us that the White House is conducting an event on access to Justice today with Vice President Biden as one of the featured speakers. The event started at 10:30AM. You should be able to listen in on the proceedings by clicking here. For those of us concerned with equal access to legal services, including legal information, this is an important event.
Until a few weeks ago before receiving a telephone call I had never heard of Ron Arons. During that call Mr. Arons explained that he had been following postings on this blog and wondered if I would be interested in reviewing two of his books. After some discussion I agreed to either review them myself or ask some of my colleagues to review them for posting on the Criminal Law Library blog, with the understanding that the books provided for reviewing would be added to the library collection of the New York Supreme Court Criminal Term Library of New York County and not given to me personally.
We are fortunate that two colleagues, both experienced book reviewers, were available and eager to take on these assignments. Pepper Hedden who has worked with me on special projects and reviews materials regularly for the Law Library Association of Greater New York (LLAGNY) will graduate December 2010 from St. John’s University with an MLS degree. She is a reference librarian in the law library of the New York County District Attorney’s office and is reviewing The Jews of Sing Sing the first of Mr. Arons’ books listed below. Ted Pollack who is reviewing Wanted! U.S. Criminal Records: Sources & Research Methodology, also by Mr. Arons, is the Senior Law Librarian at the New York County Public Access Law Library. Ted continues to review legal materials for both the New York Law Journal and the Library Journal.
Since I am not writing any of the reviews below I will only say that as a law librarian who is always looking for useful sources of criminal records, I have already found Mr. Arons book Wanted! U.S. Criminal Records: Sources & Research Methodology useful in identifying criminal records in other jurisdictions. Unfortunately I have not yet found time to read The Jews of Sing Sing–but I will. Now on to the book reviews:
November 12. 2010 is the twentieth anniversary of a research proposal that is remaking our world. As Ben Zimmer tells it in his November 14 On Language column, WWW: The 20th Anniversary of a Research Proposal That Remande the Language in the New York Times, Tim Berners-Lee, a British software programmer working at CERN outside Geneva, was attempting to “sketch out a global system for sharing information over the Internet. After submitting a document in 1989 on the topic which generated little interest, Berners-Lee tried again in 1990, collaborating with a Belgian engineer Robert Cailliau. It was this paper, WorldWideWeb: Proposal for a Hyper Text Project, submitted on November 12, 2010, that is the true basis of the World Wide Web as we know of it today. There are a number of articles, papers, and media events commemorating this seminal event, but for a quick read that is also informative, Mr. Zimmer’s colum in the Sunday November 14, 2010 New York Times comes highly recommended.
ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (SCJI)
In an October 20, 2010 e-mail discussing the Report, William K Weisenberg, Chair, ABA Standing Committee on Judicial Independence writes:
“On behalf of the Standing Committee on Judicial Independence (SCJI), I am pleased to present for your consideration recommendations and a report that address one of the most significant issues impacting the public’s trust and confidence in a fair, impartial and independent judiciary – the disqualification of a judge when the impartiality of the judge might reasonably be questioned either through specific conduct or the appearance of impropriety. In July, 2010, an updated draft of the recommendations and report was distributed widely for review by ABA entities and outside groups. The Committee held a public forum at the 2010 ABA Annual Meeting on Saturday, August 7, 2010, in order to encourage audience comments and suggestions on the revised proposal. Based upon the comments and suggestions received both at the forum and thereafter, SCJI revised the recommendations and report. They will be submitted to the House of Delegates for consideration at the 2011 Midyear Meeting. SCJI feels strongly that it has met its objective of helping states improve their judicial disqualification practices and procedures by providing to state supreme courts a menu of options to be considered as states move forward with adoption of standards and rules, while promoting public confidence in the state courts….”
The system for placing them with federal judges is breaking down.
Karen Sloan National Law Journal
October 18, 2010
From the Brennan Center for Justice, Fair Courts E-Lert October 15, 2010:
Justice Elena Kagan’s decision to recuse herself in 25 of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear continues to inspire discussion about judicial disqualification. A New York Times editorial praises Justice Kagan’s decision, but questions the credibility of a judicial system that relies on voluntary recusal. The editorial recounts two recent examples – Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision not to disqualify himself from a case involving then-Vice President Cheney, with whom the Justice socialized, and Caperton v. Massey, the 2009 landmark recusal case – in which unclear recusal guidelines cast doubt on judicial impartiality. Senator Patrick Leahy, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is currently pushing legislation to allow retired Supreme Court justices to return to the bench if a current justice must recuse, but the Times editorial contends a more vigorous disqualification process is necessary. Meanwhile, another Times editorial argues that Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife should be required to disclose donors to the conservative nonprofit organization she leads so that Justice Thomas can “comply with a fundamental ethical and legal requirement to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” A separate Times article reports that Mrs. Thomas – who recently appeared at a large Tea Party convention – is playing “the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court.”
Justice Thomas and His Wife, New York Times, October 12, 2010; Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues, New York Times, Jackie Calmes, October 8, 2010; Recusals and the Court, New York Times, October 7, 2010.
October 13, 2010.
Argument recap: Court doubts that failure to suppress confession is prejudicial in felony murder case
posted by James Bickford at SCOTUSblog –