linux安装shadowsock

哇哇加速器7天试用-老佛爷加速器

哇哇加速器7天试用-老佛爷加速器


哇哇加速器7天试用-老佛爷加速器


 

LEGITIMATE FROM THE INSIDE OUT: A REVIEW OF HOW AGENCIES ACT WHEN JUDGES ARE NOT WATCHING

Catherine E. Kanatas, Lisa G. London, and Maxwell C. Smith

It is easy to do the right thing when people are watching.  When you know you are being judged or scrutinized, you tend to be on your best behavior.  People slow down when they see a police car, they sit up straighter if the teacher is watching, and they follow the rules when the referee is on the field.  But “the true test of a man’s character is what he does when no one is watching.”  The same could be said for administrative agencies.  This “fourth branch of the government” makes, applies, and enforces rules that dictate how we live our life, from the food we eat, to the water we drink and the air we breathe. Some have called this type of centralized power undemocratic, and it understandably raises questions about the legitimacy of the administrative state. How can agencies’ actions be legitimate when they often are judge, jury, and executioner?  Such circumstances highlight the importance of “character” within an agency: how faithfully it adheres to the rules guiding decision making, how open it is with people impacted by those decisions, and how frequently it changes course to address concerns from those impacted by agency decisions. centos7搭建shadowsock
 

WHY THE LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF CRYOGENICALLY PRESERVED PRE-EMBRYOS MATTER

Tara Carlin

The rapid growth of assisted reproductive technology (ART) has created an increase in the number of pre-embryos that exist in the world outside of the female body. With the numerical increase in pre-embryos in existence, comes the question of how to legally classify these pre- embryos and what the effects of possible classification will have on ex- isting areas of law. Should they continue to be treated as property? Should we apply the same principles as embryos that are implanted in a women’s body? Do we give them the legal status of a person or child? These questions are complex and can be sensitive as they are often ex- plored through both a legal and moral lens. Read more.

 

KEEPING UP WITH GESTATIONAL CARRIER AGREEMENTS: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE REGULATION OF SURROGACY

Courtney Crosby

On May 30, 2018, the New Jersey Legislature enacted the New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act. New Jersey had previously held for thirty years that surrogacy was against the public policy of the state and was considered “baby-selling.” The New Jersey Supreme Court has now recognized the challenges of those who are situationally and medically infertile, as well as the promising nature of reproductive biotechnological advances, and found that it is within the public policy of this State to provide new legal options for those who are seeking reproductive assistance in the form of gestational surrogacy. Advances in reproductive biotechnology over the last three decades have provided families facing reproductive challenges with many more options for having children. Further, society’s acceptance and awareness of the unique reproductive challenges of LGBTQIA+ individuals and couples has heavily influenced the New Jersey Legislature. Read more.

TRAVELLING THROUGH TITLE III: THE DIFFICULTIES OF ACCESSING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL OR DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES WHILE ON VACATION

Marie Michel

When we think of disability accommodations, we think of those accommodations that we readily see in the world around us. We think of ramps. We think of elevators. We think of walkers, canes, and wheelchairs. We also think of these accommodations as long-term, per- manent structures. We think of how these aid people with disabilities in moving around their house, running errands in public places, and with working around an office environment. centos7搭建shadowsock

 

哇哇加速器7天试用-老佛爷加速器


JUSTIFYING DIGITAL DIVIDENDS
E. Claire Newsome
Monday, May 18, 2024

Justifying Digital Dividends
Thinking beyond consumer desert. [1]
 

Read Full Post


Breaking the Silence: Good Riddance to Non-Disclosure Agreements in the #MeToo Era
Kevin M. Levy[*]
Tuesday, May 21, 2024

It is not always about the commission or result of a crime; sometimes the actions taken to cover the crime up can lead to further disastrous outcomes. After ground shaking revelations over the past year about the famed film producer Harvey Weinstein and his multiple sexual harassment scandals, followed by allegations about many other prominent figures in the Hollywood scene, it is past due that state legislatures consider outlawing non-disclosure agreements (“interchangeably, NDA”) related to these crimes. While the rich and powerful have long cowered behind the shield (or sword) of draconian non-disclosure agreements that limit the ability of a victim or witness to seek redress, the walls may be tumbling down around high status perpetrators of sexual misconduct in the #MeToo Era.
This Note proposes that NDAs involving allegations of sexual assault and harassment, should be outlawed outright in order to stifle barriers that protect wealthy abusers and punish victims. In the alternative, legislatures and courts should impose negative presumptions against the enforceability of such agreements under all circumstances, in order to remove leverages that powerful institutions possess over victims and witnesses of sexual assault and harassment.

Read Full Post


Esports Teams Should Owe a Fiduciary Duty to their Players
McKenna Parris
Tuesday, May 8, 2018

I.          Introduction
            The profession of esports is relatively new and with that newness comes a host of issues. The one which this paper will focus on is the vulnerability of esports players to the chance of players being taken advantage of by their teams. During my research I did not come across any other writing about imposing a fiduciary duty between esports team and their players, so this paper is taking the first attempt at imposing a fiduciary duty to esports teams and their players. Due to the lack of previous research much of this paper is based off my own theories. This paper will explain how the designation of a fiduciary relationship between the esports teams and their players is a logical way to stop the bulk of teams taking unfair advantage of their players. Fiduciary duties are generally invoked to protect people who lack the knowledge or power to protect him or herself. These duties are not only invoked based upon relationships, such as between attorneys and clients or doctors and patients, but also on an ad hoc basis. The relationship between esports teams and players is one which passes the test as being an ad hoc fiduciary relationship. Even if the argument is raised that a fiduciary relationship does not fit the esports team and player relationship there are other ways in which fiduciary duties can still be imposed on esports teams.
 
            In Part II I will briefly explain what esports are and how large of a market esports has made in the past decade. Further, Part II will explain who esports players are and the details of their relationship with esports teams which make a fiduciary relationship necessary between esports players and their teams. Part III will focus on two arguments; the first argument is that under the Burdett v. Miller standard of the formation of an ad hoc fiduciary relationship esports teams and players have a fiduciary relationship, the second argument is that under the economic realities test esports players are employees and would deserve some fiduciary duties under Matthew Bodies’ theories in his paper Employment as a Fiduciary Relationship. Finally, in Part IV I will briefly reiterate why esports teams owe their players a fiduciary relationship and why that is a beneficial classification.

Read Full Post