Source: http://techlawjournal.com/home/newsbriefs/2004/05c.asp
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:20:36+00:00

Document:
TLJ News: May 11-15, 2004.
5/14. Attorney General John Ashcroft gave a speech regarding the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan. He once again advocated permanent extension of those portions of the PATRIOT Act that are scheduled to expired at the end of 2005.
He stated that "The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan is a work of tremendous initiative. And its impact will be that much greater because it builds on the critical tools for law enforcement won with the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. Today, 32 months after the attacks of September 11, we know that the PATRIOT Act has helped the FBI and state and local police wage a winning war again terrorism. In the past two and a half years, we have dismantled terrorist cells in Oregon, Washington, New York, North Carolina and Virginia. We have arrested terrorist operatives in California, Ohio, Texas, Florida and Idaho. We have frozen more than $138 million of funds from organizations suspected of supporting terror. More importantly, we have not suffered another major terrorist attack on our shores."
"Armed with the tools provided in the PATRIOT ACT, local law enforcement is making the critical difference in the war on terror", said Ashcroft (at left).
He added that "The PATRIOT Act has been key to law enforcement's ability to protect Americans. But many of the PATRIOT Act's most critical anti-terrorism tools will expire next year. Congress must once again do its part. Congress must keep these tools in place for law enforcement. Congress must make the PATRIOT Act's provisions permanent."
AG Ashcroft's most specific statement on extending the sunsetting provisions of the PATRIOT Act is his January 28, 2004 letter [4 page PDF scan] to Senate leaders in which he opposed passage of S 1709, the "Security and Freedom Ensured Act of 2003" (SAFE Act). See, story titled "Ashcroft Opposes Senate Bill to Roll Back PATRIOT Act Provisions", TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 827, February 2, 2004.
5/13. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted, but did not release, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding use by unlicensed devices of broadcast television spectrum where the spectrum is not in use by broadcasters. The goal is to make more spectrum available (and spectrum that can go through walls) for networking electronic devices within premises, and for providing wireless broadband internet access.
The FCC issued a short release [2 pages in PDF] that briefly and vaguely describes this item. Each of the five Commissioners spoke, and issued a written statement. See, full story.
5/13. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a meeting to mark up several bills. However, it held over all of the technology related items on the agenda: S 1933, the "Enhancing Federal Obscemity Reporting and Copyright Enforcement (ENFORCE) Act of 2003", S 1635, the "L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003", and S 2013, the "Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004".
5/13. The House Science Committee held a hearing on HR 4218, the "High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004". John Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, wrote in his prepared testimony [PDF] that "I share your enthusiasm for and commitment to high-performance computing and I am pleased to convey the Administration's support for the High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004, in its current form." See also, prepared testimony of Irving Wladawsky-Berger (IBM), prepared testimony of Rick Stevens (Director of the NSF TeraGrid). and prepared testimony of Daniel Reed (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). See also, Report of the High End Computing Revitalization Task Force [80 pages in PDF] and Committee release.
5/13. The House Commerce Committee postponed its markup of "Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act".
Rep. Baker stated that this bill "would simply require the expensing of stock options for the top five employees of each corporation". See, full story.
The Committee held over HR 3632, the "Anticounterfeiting Amendments of 2003". This bill would revise and expand 18 U.S.C. § 2318, which pertains to trafficking in counterfeit labels, documentation and packaging of computer programs, phonorecords, and movies. See, story titled "Rep. Smith Introduces Bill to Strengthen Ban on Counterfeit Labeling of Software, Movies and Music" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 787, November 26, 2003.
5/12. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S 2013, the "Satellite Home Viewer Extension Act of 2004", a bill to amend 17 U.S.C. § 119. See, opening statement of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the Chairman of the Committee, opening statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking Democrat on the Committee, and opening statement of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). See also, prepared testimony of witnesses: David Carson (Copyright Office), Charles Ergen (EchoStar), Bruce Reese (Bonneville International Corporation), Eddy Hartenstein (DirecTV), Fritz Attaway (Motion Picture Association of America), and John King (Vermont Public Television).
It also states that "To truly build global capacities to combat terrorist and criminal uses of the Internet, all countries must continue to improve laws that criminalize misuses of computer networks and that allow for faster cooperation on Internet-related investigations. With the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime coming into force on July 1, 2004, we should take steps to encourage the adoption of the legal standards it contains on a broad basis."
The plaintiffs below, and appellants in this appeal, are the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), which bought WorldCom bonds. CalPERS carefully drafted its complaint for the purpose of attempting to evade removal to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. It filed complaints in state courts, and only plead under the Securities Act of 1933, which provides in Section 22(a), which is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), that "no case arising under this subchapter and brought in any State court of competent jurisdiction shall be removed to any court of the United States."
The Bankruptcy Code provides, at 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), that claims that are "related to" a bankruptcy case may be removed to the Bankruptcy Court.
The District Court held that the anti-removal provision in the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), does not preclude removal of the individual actions under the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).
It held that "generally nonremovable claims brought under the Securities Act of 1933 may be removed to federal court if they come under the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), which confers federal jurisdiction over claims that are related to a bankruptcy case. In so holding, we do not decide whether the particular claims at issue in this case come under the purview of 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a). Instead, we simply affirm the District Court’s decision to assert jurisdiction over the Bondholders’ individual Securities Act claims despite the conflict between Section 22(a) and Section 1452(a)."
Go to News from May 6-10, 2004.

References: § 2318
 § 119
 § 77
 § 1452
 § 77
 § 1452
 § 1452
 § 1452