Message from @romotec
Discord ID: 495385299606568972
You have gained a rank @Forsaken.Rhoeth, you just advanced to 14 . Thanks for all you do Patriot!
You need the URL notthe Image URL
Dan Bongino fired up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaHEvXitH14
6. Frank v Gaos
Issue: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/frank-v-gaos/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2018/17-961
-found by Xrindahl
2000 limiton words
letters sorry
yeah
i did that too
Im talkingto someone else sry
wrote out a long ...long post and bam
{6 A} Facts of the case
In a group of consolidated class actions, three plaintiffs sued Google on behalf of internet users who claimed that their privacy was violated under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et. seq., and California law by the company’s disclosure of their internet search terms to third party websites. The case went to mediation, and the parties reached a settlement which they submitted to the district court for approval in July 2013.
Among the terms of the settlement were that Google would pay $5.3 million of the $8.3 million total to six cy pres recipients, provided that they agreed to dedicate the funds to promoting education and initiatives relating to internet privacy. The district court certified the class for settlement purposes, and preliminarily approved the settlement. Notice was sent out to the class in 2014, with 13 class members opting out and 5, including Thomas Frank, filing objections (“the Objectors”).
{6 B} The district court approved the parties’ settlement in 2015, and with regard to the objections, found that: (1) the cy pres award was appropriate because the award was non-distributable, (2) Rule 23(b)(3)’s superiority requirement was not affected by whether the award was cy pres, (3) there was a substantial nexus between the cy pres recipients and the interests of the class members, and there was no evidence that the parties’ preexisting relationships with the recipients influenced the selection process, and (4) the amount of attorney fees was commensurate with the benefit to the class.
The Ninth Circuit approved the district court’s ruling approving the settlement, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion with regard to any of the four findings described above.
{6 C} Question of the Issue:
Does a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members support class certification and comport with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate,” and if so, in what circumstances?
{6 D} Definition of Cy-pres: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cy-près_doctrine : The cy-près doctrine (/ˌsiːˈpreɪ/ SEE-PRAY) is a legal doctrine that first arose in courts of equity. The legal French term literally means "so near/close" and can be translated as "as near as possible" or "as near as may be".[1] The doctrine originated in the law of charitable trusts, but has been applied in the context of class action settlements in the United States.
A legal term for 'ambiguity'
7. Nielsen v Preap http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nielsen-v-preap/ Issue: Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
Police And State’s Attorney Response To Montgomery County House Delegation’s Request To Open Criminal Investigation Against Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Hell, this is good publicity for Cruz. https://twitter.com/DaniellaMicaela/status/1040348430919495682
8. GARZA v IDAHO http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/garza-v-idaho/ Issue: Whether the “presumption of prejudice” recognized in Roe v. Flores-Ortega applies when a criminal defendant instructs his trial counsel to file a notice of appeal but trial counsel decides not to do so because the defendant’s plea agreement included an appeal waiver. Please see related case: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1441
