Legal Questions

Twitter is increasingly becoming a channel for public companies to communicate with investors but, as Dominic Jones of IR Web Report observes in this post, some of Twitter’s inherent limitations create compliance challenges. As Jones notes, public companies’ communications to the world are in many instances regulated by the SEC and subject to the federal securities laws. Some communications may require disclaimers or
warnings that can’t possibly fit within Twitter’s 140-character limit, creating a conundrum for companies that want to communicate with investors via Twitter.

Jones suggests that this problem could be resolved if Twitter would tweak its interface to allow for a disclaimer link in the metadata that accompanies each tweet
on the Web and the API. He argues that the availability of such a link might encourage many more companies to begin using Twitter to help spread information about themselves, and could also be an easy way for Twitter to raise revenue by requiring these corporate accounts to be paid accounts.

Presently, Jones writes, public companies on Twitter tend to use
one of the following ineffective methods to add disclaimers to their tweets:

1. Twitter backgrounds: While companies can add disclaimer text to their Twitter account background images, many users will never see this text because they don’t visit the Twitter Web site. Instead, they may use a Twitter client such as TweetDeck or Twitter’s mobile site where this text would not appear.

2. Twitter bios: While placing a disclaimer in the one-line Twitter “bio” field may be slightly more effective than putting disclaimers on Twitter backgrounds because bios are typically included in the
profile information on Twitter clients such as TweetDeck, many TweetDeck and other client users will never choose to view the bio information. In addition, Twitter bios are limited to 160 characters, which is barely enough room for the typical securities lawyer to clear his or her throat.

As discussed above, however, Jones has devised a solution to this problem — “a new ‘disclaimer’ parameter that could appear below each tweet and link to a page
containing a comprehensive disclaimer.” I think this is an excellent idea that could provide companies with a way around their current Twitter compliance dilemma. Here is Jones’ mock-up of what a disclaimer link might look like:

So, why would you ever need to do a marriage license records search?

Apart from the obvious reasons such as replacing a marriage license that has been misplaced or damaged, there are a number of other valid reasons. Relevant marriage documentation may be used in various scenarios. A good example would be in legal proceedings between a couple, where the physical document must be submitted to the court for a particular reason. This may depend on the circumstance at hand, and becomes beneficial to the legal team, investigative team or maybe even the authorities. Whatever the reason, you should be able to find what you are looking for quite easily. Read on to find out more…

What obstacles exist in finding marriage license records?

Well, basically the single biggest challenge to anyone searching for marriage records is the shear volume. Historically, every document must be stored and with the increasing number of marriages in the country, the size of the problem is literally increasing.

The second problem is more of a historical issue but is stated here to highlight the benefits of using modern techniques.

Previously, the entire management of public records was handled manually. The filing, indexing and storing was done on site at the records office, police department or library.

The procedure in those days was somewhat tedious and time consuming:

- An application to the relevant office was submitted via fax, mail (email or snail mail), phone or in person.
- All the relevant information was passed on to the officer in charge for processing.
- Any queries arising during the search were referred back to the applicant.
- The applicant would then have to submit further information, as required by the officer.
- Once all required facts were gathered, the search could proceed.
- The retrieval of documents had to be done manually and this too was a painstaking process.
- Upon final retrieval, the applicant would be contacted, and the necessary records were delivered.

The process was particularly slow and your application could end up taking days or weeks before the marriage records were located.

Be prepared for your search.

The internet has provided a much better way for accessing public records. But before we delve into the in and outs of doing internet searches for public records, just a quick warning: Not ALL documents pertaining to weddings are filed or lodged in court. There are cases where the ‘legal’ requirements are not fulfilled such as the document signing. In these rare instances, you are probably not going to find the marriage records.

However, there is hope…!

The INTERNET to the rescue!

Apart from the warning stated above, there should be no other reasons preventing you from accessing marriage license records. The internet now provides a faster, wider and more thorough engine for completing searches. You will still have to apply for the records and provide the necessary information, however, any shortcomings can be resolved immediately. Apart from immediate responses, the internet also allows searches beyond local boundaries as was previously the case. There are a number of sites that can assist you with providing search results

You’ll want to focus your search on finding the marriage license records and not the sites that offer the service. To assist you in this regard, feel free to browse through some reviews and preview what is available. These reviews can be found at www.view-public-records.net.

Good luck and happy hunting!

Today I kick off what could turn into an ongoing series of posts here at Legal Blog Watch, assuming the continued future clueless-ness of litigants: “Judge Carton Rules.”

No, Judge Carton is not a real judge and, like Judge Wapner, my rulings are not “technically” binding on the parties. But that has never stopped me from ruling before, see, e.g., MacStupid, aka MacGyver v. MacGruber, and it certainly won’t stop me here. Moving on.

My mission? To spare the parties to cases in which the outcome is obvious the time and expense of further litigation. Here is today’s docket:

Case 1: British tennis pro Robert Dee has sued the UK’s Daily Telegraph for describing him as “the world’s worst tennis pro.” He says the slam has ruined his professional reputation. The newspaper is ready to call Boris
Becker and John Lloyd, the former British great, in its defense.

Judge Carton’s ruling:  Dee reportedly admits he indeed lost 54 successive matches in international contests, including 108 sets in a row. Tell Becker and Lloyd to stay home. The Daily Telegraph’s future motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.

Case 2: Record company EMI has appealed a recent court ruling that the Australian band Men at Work copied a flute riff from the children’s song “Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree” in their 1980s song, “Down Under.” EMI claims that similarities to two bars of the Kookaburra song might be noticed by “the highly sensitized or educated musical ear” but were unlikely to be noticed by the ordinary listener.

Judge Carton’s ruling: Wrong! As I wrote here after listening to the two songs, the key bars from those songs sound just alike. And while I am a fake judge and many other things, I most assuredly do not have a “highly sensitized or educated musical ear.” The appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the verdict in favor of “The Kookaburra Who Sits in the Old Gum Tree” is AFFIRMED.

Court is dismissed.

Eric Goldman, of the Santa Clara University law school faculty, who blogs over at Goldman’s Observations, has a lengthy post detailing his experiment with offering students in his Cyberspace Law class (yes, that’s really what it’s called) the option to have a portion of their grade based on something other than the final exam. Thank god Professor Kingsfield didn’t live to see this.

Goldman gave his students the option to have 20 percent of their grades determined by drafting wiki entries on appropriate cyberspace law topics. Twelve of his 45 students chose to do so; none of them took him up on the offer to collaborate with each other in the process.

Goldman details the logistics of getting the entries (all of which are linked in his post) publication-ready, including word counts, time spent on edits, etc., and winds up on the fence about whether he will offer students the option in the future. The “gory redlines” he gave back to the participants may be a good introduction to partner markups of briefs for those firm-bound, but what do you think, readers? Is the wiki exercise appreciably different than having a student write a research paper, other than the fact that, as Goldman points out, the final work product isn’t relegated to a file drawer somewhere? Will soon-to-be lawyers be able to live with the fact that mere mortals might try to add to or change their entries? When will Legal Blog Watch be worthy of a Wikipedia page like Above the Law?