Articles and publications

Child abduction case

Karina Duvall in her appeal requested to vacate first-instance court order, claiming that first-instance court failed to take into account essential circumstances: that daughter didn’t have residential permit in Finland; that the immigration authorities refused to update her immigration status; that child’s residence in Finland was repeatedly changed; that the child resided in Norway for a while; that both parents are Russian citizens. Read More »

Disability of Crimean Divorce

Divorces issued in Crimea and, as a result, marriages issued after these divorces, are not recognized by immigration authorities of many countries, and absolutely for sure, by the United States immigration services. Read More »

17 U.S. Code § 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

(a)Transitory Digital Network Communications.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the provider’s transmitting, routing, or providing connections for, material through a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider, or by reason of the intermediate and transient storage of that material in the course of such transmitting, routing, or providing connections, if—
(1) the transmission of the material was initiated by or at the direction of a person other than the service provider;
(2) the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider;
(3) the service provider does not select the recipients of the material except as an automatic response to the request of another person;
(4) no copy of the material made by the service provider in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients, and no such copy is maintained on the system or network in a manner ordinarily accessible to such anticipated recipients for a longer period than is reasonably necessary for the transmission, routing, or provision of connections; and
(5) the material is transmitted through the system or network without modification of its content.
(b) System Caching.—
(1)Limitation on liability.—A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, or, except as provided in subsection (j), for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the intermediate and temporary storage of material on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider in a case in which—
(A) the material is made available online by a person ... Read More »

The American court lost jurisdiction

Sometimes life offers you surprises. A father who sued a mother for stealing their child and moving to Russia had just learned that he made a fatal mistake. He filed a petition in new york to have the mother immediately return the child. The mother did not. He then asked the court for custody in of the child and the court issued an order of custody. All he had to do was to hand the mother the custody paper.

However by the time the father handed the custody order to the mother in Russia, the mother filed for a divorce and custody in Russia. The father appeared in Russia by his lawyer to fight the divorce but he lost.

Before the court in New York issued a final custody decision to the father in New York the Russian court issued the custody decision to the mother in Russia.

Guess what? The American court lost jurisdiction, was the decision if the New York judge. The case is closed. Read More »

Action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate Plaintiff's claims; even if the court did have jurisdiction, Plaintiff would not be able to overcome Defendants' absolute immunity to suit. Moreover, while courts generally should not dismiss pro se complaints "without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000), courts may deny plaintiffs the opportunity to amend "when amendment would be futile," Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir. 2009). Here, the Complaint provides no indication that Plaintiff has a colorable claim under federal law; further amendment would clearly be futile. See, e.g., Renner, 2013 WL 1898389, at *4. Consequently, Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Read More »