Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
PINOCHET PROSECUTOR: JUSTICE MUST BE INTERNATIONAL The man who prosecuted former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet says the International Criminal Court is an important tool “to protect humanity against crimes.” Speaking at the University of San Francisco last week, Carlos Castresana told law students that the Bush administration has stalled momentum gained by the court since its post-World War II conception in the United Nations. Castresana, who prosecutes corruption in the Spanish territories for the district attorney’s office of Spain, talked to students about globalization and the importance of establishing a meaningful, independent international criminal court to help protect human rights. “It’s growing,” Castresana said. “It’s a reality. But Bush has moved the U.S. farther away.” Speaking in Spanish and aided by a translator, Castresana said a new economy — fueled by technology — has turned human rights violations into less of a domestic issue and more of an international crisis. The Bush administration has said the international court would give America’s enemies a tool they could use to arrest U.S. citizens and military personnel overseas. “The U.S. says the prosecutor is too independent. Wants it to have the dependence of the U.N. Security Council,” Castresana said. Castresana said the United Nations created the foundations for an international criminal court in 1946 to battle genocide, but the court has been hindered through the years because of opposition by the Soviet Union. Now Russia is supporting the court, he said, but the U.S. is not. Castresana, who authored the indictment against Pinochet for the killing of political opponents during his reign, received the National Human Rights Prize in Spain for his work on the case. Besides prosecuting Pinochet, he also brought tax fraud charges against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. “Justice must become international as violations of human rights is international,” said Castresana. “We need new international agreements to regulate international courts . . . and new laws to punish the forceful disappearance of people. We need laws that allow the [international] prosecution of these crimes.” – Jason Dearen PICKY, PICKY, PICKY A word of advice to any lawyer thinking about leaving a firm to start your own: Don’t improperly solicit the old firm’s employees and clients to come along; don’t misappropriate the former boss’s trade secrets or destroy his computer files; don’t take the company car. Courts frown on those things. On Thursday, Los Angeles’ Second District Court of Appeal, in a published ruling, upheld damages of $150,000 against Pasadena’s Hanlon & Greene and its principals, Daniel Hanlon and Colin Greene. The amount could have been more than $30,000 higher if Hanlon and Greene hadn’t earlier reached a stipulated agreement with their old boss that he would recover no more than $150,000. The appeal court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling that stayed a $50,000 arbitration award in Hanlon & Greene’s favor. According to the ruling, Hanlon and Greene left Pasadena’s Robert L. Reeves & Associates in June 1999, taking the firm’s list of about 2,100 clients with them and leaving no memorandum about the cases they had been handling. “The abrupt departure and notice,” the court said, “confused many of the Reeves firm’s clients, who phoned to inquire whether the Reeves firm was still in business and whether anyone was handling their cases.” Eventually, six paralegals and secretaries followed Hanlon and Greene, as did 155 of the Reeves firm’s clients. “This loss of clients and revenue,” the appeal court said, “was well above historical rates.” While Hanlon and Greene said they left the Reeves firm over disagreements about profit sharing, case assignments and other matters, the appeal court wasn’t sympathetic, finding most of the departing lawyers’ arguments meritless and opining that the two had acted unethically. “Here, the evidence indicates that Hanlon and Greene engaged in unfair and unjustifiable misconduct in the course of hiring employees from the Reeves firm,” Justice Daniel Curry wrote for the court. “There is substantial evidence that they mounted a campaign against the Reeves firm involving destruction of computer records, misuse of confidential information and unethical conduct, of which the cultivation of employee discontent was only a component.” Justices Charles Vogel and Norman Epstein concurred. But in a mini-victory for Hanlon & Greene, the court reduced the firm’s trial costs by $1,955.09. The case is Reeves v. Hanlon, 03 C.D.O.S. 1518. – Mike McKee COPYRIGHT VICTORY The Sacramento U.S. attorney’s office recently won the first California criminal conviction prosecuted under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act — five years after Congress passed the law. The Eastern District, run by interim U.S. Attorney John Vincent, entered into a plea agreement with Vacaville resident Mohsin Mynaf, 37, in U.S. v. Mynaf, 01-524. Earlier this month, a judge sentenced Mynaf to two years in federal prison and three years of probation and ordered him to pay more than $200,000 in restitution and fines. Mynaf had pleaded guilty in March 2002 to violating the act after investigators confiscated about 4,500 bootlegged videotapes in Vacaville, Fairfield and Vallejo. At Mynaf’s home, they found a reproduction lab, including a machine that allowed him to bypass electronic copyright protection. According to the U.S. attorney’s office, the case is the first California win and only the second DMCA conviction nationwide. In Nebraska, federal prosecutors won a case involving a modification to allow Sony Playstations to play unauthorized copies of copyright-protected games. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krotoski, who prosecuted the Sacramento case, said Mynaf’s misdeeds were a “pure” violation of the act because he purposefully circumvented copyright protection. Krotoski didn’t think it was unusual that there haven’t been very many successful DMCA cases, and said that the decision whether to file charges is dictated quite a bit by “prosecutorial discretion.” Recently, the Northern District U.S. attorney’s office lost a high-profile digital millennium case, U.S. v. Elcomsoft, 01-20138 . In the first case prosecuted under the act to go to trial, a jury acquitted Elcomsoft Co. Ltd., a Russian software company, accused of violating the act for creating a program that could be used to get around security protections on Adobe Systems Inc.’s eBook reader. In the Sacramento case, federal investigators were alerted to Mynaf’s activities by investigators with the Motion Picture Association of America. Mynaf was copying and selling mainstream movies including “Legally Blonde,” “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon” and “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.” – Jeff Chorney KUDOS A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge is in the national spotlight for his innovative work in establishing the county’s drug court. Judge Stephen Manley is being inducted into the Stanley M. Goldstein Drug Court Hall of Fame by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. He’s only the third person to be named to the hall of fame, which is named for the judge who presided over the nation’s first drug court in Miami. The induction was held at the fourth annual Juvenile and Family Drug Court Training Conference in Washington, D.C., in January. Manley, who was appointed to the bench by Gov. Jerry Brown in 1981, has taken the lead in establishing Santa Clara’s drug court. He handles adult drug court and mental health calendars in San Jose. His work garnered high praise during the induction ceremony from Deborah Cima, chairwoman of California Drug Court Coordinators. “We all know you stand in the line of fire for us in order to obtain funding, fight for institutionalization of drug courts and mostly fight for the services needed to help men, women and children regain their dignity through drug treatment,” Cima said. – Shannon Lafferty

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.