Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, in Major Acts of Congress (B. Landsberg ed., Macmillan Reference Books, 2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ann Piccard, Direct Appeal Jurisdiction of Florida’s District Courts of Appeal, 33 Stetson L. Rev. 152 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, “Defensive Territoriality”: A New Paradigm for the Prosecution of Extraterritorial Business Crimes, 31 Ga. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 1 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
James W. Fox, Naturalization Acts (1790), in Major Acts of Contress (Macmillan Reference Books, 2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction: Replacing “Objective Territoriality with “Defensive Territoriality”, 28 Studies in Law, Politics, and Society 117 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The "objective territorial principle" is a common jurisdiction base used in the United States for the prosecution of extraterritorial crimes. With increased globalization, it becomes easier for a prosecutor to demonstrate that conduct occurring outside the United States is having a substantial effect in this country. Although "objective territoriality" expands the limits of extraterritorial jurisdiction, it sometimes fails to offer jurisdiction for conduct directly targeting the United States government. This article suggests that "objective territoriality" needs to be reconfigured to provide more respect for the laws of other countries. Likewise, in keeping with the decision of United States v. Bowman, it is important to provide extraterritorial jurisdiction when necessary to protect government processes of the United States. This article offers the concept of "defensive territoriality" as an alternative to "objective territoriality." It distinguishes this new concept from the "protective principle" and presents contextual application of how this new principle might operate in determining issues of extraterritoriality.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor and John Wesley Hall, Government Surveillance of Attorney-Client Communications: Invoked in the Name of Fighting Terrorism, 17 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 145 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This essay provides a critical analysis of Attorney General Ashcroft's Order permitting the government to monitor attorney-client conversations in prison. It provides a summary of the Order, the responses to the Order, and discusses ongoing litigation that contests the Order. The Essay also provides, as background, the contextual setting that allows for monitoring under existing provisions in Title III and FISA. After examining the constitutional issues emanating from Ashcroft's Order permitting attorney-client monitoring in prison, there is a discussion of the implications to the Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges. Of particular focus is the ethical responsibilities of counsel when maintaining contact with a client when monitoring may be occurring. The Essay considers the importance of finding an appropriate balance between civil liberties and national security, but maintains that the Attorney General should not be permitted to disregard constitutional rights, the attorney-client privilege and the ethical responsibilities of attorneys, claiming that these measures are necessary to fight terrorism.
Date of Publication:
Roberta Flowers, Litigating with the Elderly Client, 16 National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys Quarterly 2 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Schemes to Defraud, 27 Champion 12 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Perspectives on Wetlands and Biodiversity: International Law, Iraqi Marshlands and Incentives for Restoration, 15 Colorado Journal of International Envtl. L. and POlicy 1 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, Rehabilitating Nature: A Comparative Review of Legal Mechanisms That Encourage Wetland Restoration Efforts, 52 Cath. U. L. Rev. 573 (2003)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This article reviews the current legal mechanisms throughout the world that are designed to encourage wetland restoration activities. Part I examines international law that calls for wetland restoration. Part II explores non-regulatory programs that offer financial incentives for wetland restoration. In particular, direct payments to landowners and indirect payments through tax deductions and credits are noted. Part III explores domestic, non-cash incentives that are outside of traditional, permit-based regulatory programs. Such incentives include the generation of good will or favorable publicity for corporations (or their desire to avoid unfavorable publicity), governmental permission to conduct harvesting activities that would otherwise be limited or prohibited, and governmental assurances not to impose stricter land-use controls if the restoration project results in environmental improvements. Part IV reviews several domestic regulatory programs and indentifes incentives for wetland restoration, including mitigation banking.