The criminalization of lying: Under what circumstances, if any, should lies be made criminal?

This is the post-print version of the Article. The official published version can be accessed from the link - Copyright @ 2011 University of Illinois PressThis Article argues that lying should be a crime. In doing so, we propose the creation of a wholly new category of crime, which we term “egregious lying causing serious harm.” The Article has two broad objectives: the first is to make the case why such a crime should even exist, and the second is to flesh out how this crime might be constructed. The main contribution of the Article lies in the radical nature of its stated aim: the outright criminalization of certain kinds of lies. To our knowledge, such a proposal has not previously been made. The analysis also contributes to a broader discussion regarding the issue of overcriminalization. We conclude that while criminalizing certain forms of lies might at first blush appear fanciful, the case for doing so is not only plausible, it is indeed necessary

Reliance Remedies at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes

Examines situations in which the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes has awarded damages for the cost of the investment, which may be compared to the contract law concept of reliance damages. Notes that this measure of damages is often used where lost profits are difficult to calculate because of the speculative nature of the future investment

Mortgaging the Meme: Financing and Managing Disruptive Innovation

Disruptive innovation can be described as the introduction of a new conceptual idea or meme into an existing system that causes the system to be fundamentally altered. Assembly lines, air conditioning, digital film, and personal computers represent such innovations, all of which led to fundamental paradigm shifts. The convergence of globalization, a networked economy, and digital technologies have made disruptive innovation a threat in almost every industry. Changes to publishing, music, and television distribution – along with the rise of social media – highlight this transformation, but they are not alone; manufacturing, retail, payment systems, transportation and other industries are struggling with volatile upheaval caused by such change. Disruptive innovation, however, follows predictable patterns. Investors can anticipate these shifts if their financial transactions are properly structured and effectively documented. The model requires a holistic intellectual property approach which looks beyond just patents. It must explicitly incorporate the underlying meme, and it must account for the inflection points in the transformation pattern. Utilizing this model, inventors, private equity investment structures and established firms can maximize value and promote innovation. This article provides an overview of disruptive innovation from examples of the past decade, identify the underlying patterns of change common to disruptive innovation, highlight strategies to mitigate disruption for existing industry, and address the intellectual property securitization aspects to structure effective deals for both the investors and innovators

The Moonscape of Tax Equality: Windsor and Beyond

This essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared section three of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The essay is important because, while other federal laws will apply to some same-sex couples some of the time, the federal tax laws are a concern for all same-sex couples all of the time. The essay is timely because it addresses the recently issued IRS guidance regarding the tax treatment of same-sex couples. In this essay, I first describe the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, I turn to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply — even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than fostering the recognition of a broader array of human relationships

Transport of neutral IgG2 versus anionic IgG4 in PD : implications on the electrokinetic model

Background: It is debated whether transperitoneal membrane transport of larger (charged) molecules in peritoneal dialysis can be partially governed by the electrokinetic model. In this model, it is postulated that streaming potentials are generated across the capillary wall by forced filtration of an ionic solution, for example transcapillary ultrafiltration induced by osmotic forces as in peritoneal dialysis. We investigated the presence of streaming potentials in the process of transperitoneal transport in Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) patients by measuring ratios of dialysate concentrations of IgG2 (neutral) and IgG4 (negative), both 150kD, under different conditions of transcapillary ultrafiltration. Methods: Adult PD patients randomly got two consecutive dwells of 120 min each, with either 2 L Physioneal 1.36% or 3.86% glucose dialysis fluid (Baxter, USA) as their first dwell. A blood sample was taken at the test start, and dialysate samples were taken at 5, 15, 30, 60 and 120 min. IgG2 and IgG4 concentrations were measured (ELISA) and ratios calculated. Results: In 10 patients (65 +/- 17 years, 2017 months on dialysis), drained volume after 120 min was different between the 1.36% (1950 [1910; 2020] mL) and 3.86% (2540 [2380; 2800] mL) glucose dwells (P = 0.007). At none of the time points and irrespective of glucose concentration, a significant difference was found between the IgG2/IgG4 ratios at any time point. Conclusion: Our data failed to demonstrate a difference in the transport ratios of two macromolecules with same molecular weight but different charge, as would be expected by the electrokinetic model, and this despite sufficient differences in transcapillary ultrafiltration

Statelessness and mass expulsion in Sudan: a reassessment of the international law

types: ArticleThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Following the secession of South Sudan from Sudan on July 9, 2011, both South Sudan and Sudan have passed new citizenship laws with dramatic effects for the rights of individuals on both sides of the new border. While in Sudan this consists of a series of amendments to the 1994 Sudanese Nationality Act,the new South Sudan government has promulgated an entirely new Nationality Act. I have recently published an extended analysis of the resulting legal regime that describes its key features in some detail. This paper builds on that initial analysis through an examination of the key resulting protection threats for those South Sudanese remaining in Sudan and, in particular, resulting de jure and de facto statelessness and the threat of mass expulsion. As such, this article is intended to serve as something of a companion piece to my earlier paper. While that paper examined the operation of the post-secession nationality regime in detail, this article explains the resources available at public international law to address the key failures of that regime

Jurisdictionality and Bowles v. Russell

On June 14, 2007, the Supreme Court decided Bowles v. Russell, a case watched primarily by procedure geeks but one which may have enormous impact for courts and litigators. It addressed a ubiquitous but confusing question of jurisdictional characterization: when is a limitation “jurisdictional,” and when is it not? Litigators encounter these questions all the time in statutory coverage issues, in time limitations, and in a host of other preconditions. Whether a particular limitation is jurisdictional or not can be an important question, for jurisdictional limitations are not subject to waiver or equitable exceptions, may be raised at any time, and obligate courts to monitor and raise them sua sponte. In Bowles, the Court held that the statutory time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional

Partisan Conflicts Over Presidential Authority

A prevailing view in the legal and political science literature assumes that power holders seek to expand or contract their constitutional authority based on incentives that are intrinsic to the logic of the institutional offices they occupy. For instance, it is generally assumed that Presidents are empire builders who will almost always prefer maximum flexibility in shaping their policy objectives, whereas members of Congress may sometimes shirk their institutional prerogatives because of electoral incentives or collective action problems. A similar institutional logic underpins the view that federal courts will often seek to expand their interpretive authority in constitutional controversies at the expense of the political branches. In this Essay, I sketch out the possibility that power holders may often seek to expand or contract the scope of presidential authority based on whether it advances partisan rather than institutional objectives. More specifically, when the constitutional allocation of presidential authority is unbundled along discrete issue dimensions, partisan power holders may have an incentive to stake out a vision of presidential authority that increases the chance of carrying out their favored issues and that makes it more difficult to carry out issues that favor the political opposition. And as the parties\u27 electoral bases and elites become more polarized in terms of ideology and presidential*390 voting patterns, such partisan divisions regarding the allocation of presidential authority are likely to become more pronounced. This Essay illustrates this dynamic by examining the conflicting positions on presidential power adopted by the administrations of President Barack Obama and his predecessors on issues like human rights, war powers, and executive branch oversight of the administrative state