Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Arrest; Aut Dedere Aut Judicare; Call Center; Caller ID; Con Artist; Concurrent Jurisdiction; Conviction; COVID-19; Cryptocurrency; Customary International Law; Cybercrime; Employment; Extradition; Extraterritoriality; Financial Crime; Fraud; Government Imposter; Immigration; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Internet; INTERPOL; Investment Scam; Jurisdiction; Law Enforcement; Lottery Scam; Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty; Passive Personality Principle; Phone Call; Prosecution; Robocalls; Scam; Scarcity Principle; Sovereignty; Tax Fraud Scam; Technical Support; Technical Support; Scam; Telephone Calls; Territoriality Principle; Utilitarianism; Victim; Voice Over Internet Protocol (1)
- Ninth Circuit; protective order; First Amendment; litigation; public policy; more than tangential; Center for Auto Safety; motion to seal; court records; open proceedings; open court; right to know; public access (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Prosecuting The Phone Scammer When Extradition Fails And Concurrent Jurisdiction Exists, Michelle Lepkofker
Brooklyn Journal of International Law
Advancements in technology allow people to place phone calls half a world away via the internet. This technology has made it easier and cheaper for consumers to communicate, but it has also made it easier for scammers to reach more unsuspecting victims. In 2020, TrueCaller, an app designed to block scam phone calls, successfully blocked, and identified 31.3 billion spam calls in 20 countries. In the same year, Americans alone lost a total of USD $ 29.8 billion to scam calls. This Note argues that phone scams continue to be lucrative, in part, because criminal prosecutions of transnational crimes are …
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias
Journal of Law and Policy
Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test. With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.