The American Bar Association has granted reapproval to Pennsylvania College of Technology’s legal assistant majors, one of only 14 programs in Pennsylvania to be recognized in that fashion.

The college’s School of Business and Computer Technologies recently was notified of the action by the ABA’s House of Delegates, which follows a successful site visit early last fall and a recommendation by the association’s Standing Committee on Paralegals.

“This notification reaffirms the high quality of the instruction, advising, work-based experiences and job placement provided by our paralegal studies faculty and college for our certificate and associate- and bachelor-degree-seeking students,” said Edward A. Henninger, dean of the school.

Penn College offers a bachelor’s degree in legal assistant/paralegal studies, an associate degree in legal assistant/paralegal and a certificate in nurse/health care paralegal studies. Its curriculum provides students with a mix of essential courses and instruction in specialized areas of the law, providing the background for successful employment in a rapidly growing field.

“American Bar Association approval of paralegal programs is a very rigorous process culminating in a two-day on-site review by an ABA team,” noted Kevin R. Derr, professor of legal assistant in the School of Business and Computer Technologies. “The process involves a thorough review of the paralegal program’s curriculum, faculty credentials, library sources, facility, student services and administration. The process is important to us as an indicator that we meet the very demanding standards set by the national organization, which reviews programs throughout the country.”

All paralegal courses in Penn College’s program, which has been ABA-approved since 1994, are taught by licensed attorneys. Students complete a required internship in a law firm, government agency or law-related office. (Paralegals work under the supervision of licensed attorneys and are prohibited from practicing law.)

Schilt will be sentenced on August 6th, and is expected to serve between 32 and 48 years.

Amy Schilt, Frank Schilt's oldest daughter, stated that the new plea was agreed on by all involved, and was intended to spare the family the drama of a trial.

"We support the fact that he is pleading guilty to second-degree murder" Amy told reporters, "because it would be better for everyone, so that we could kind of move on with our lives, and get over a lot of these things without it coming back in our faces."

Terri Schilt was reported missing in March 2006, and was believed to have been killed in late February of that year.

The gunman who killed 32 people at Virginia Tech failed to get the mental health treatment ordered by a judge who declared him an imminent threat to himself and others, a newspaper reported Monday.

However, neither the court nor community mental health officials followed up on the judge‘s order, and Cho didn‘t get the treatment, The Washington Post reported, citing unidentified authorities who have seen Cho‘s medical files.

Federal, state and local officials contacted Monday by The Associated Press said they had no idea whether Cho received the treatment because they are not privy to that information. School officials did not return calls seeking comment.

On Dec. 13, 2005, Cho e-mailed a roommate at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg saying that he might as well commit suicide. The roommate called police, who took Cho to the New River Valley Community Services Board, the area‘s mental health agency.

On Dec. 14, special judge Paul M. Barnett found that Cho was an imminent danger to himself and ordered him into involuntary outpatient treatment. Special justices are lawyers with some expertise and training who are appointed by the jurisdiction‘s chief judge.

The court doesn‘t follow up because "we have no authority," Teel said.

Virginia law says community services boards "shall recommend a specific course of treatment and programs" for people such as Cho who are ordered to receive outpatient treatment. It also says these boards "shall monitor the person‘s compliance."

The firm's co-founders, William Zisko and Timothy Tomlinson, said they are joining the East Palo Alto office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, which has grown its Silicon Valley office to 43 lawyers since opening in 2004.

Tomlinson Zisko has three other lawyers, all of whom said they are joining other law firms in the area.  Tomlinson Zisko had as many as 20 lawyers at its peak in 2000. But retirements and defections reduced the firm's headcount to five today.

Tomlinson said the firm's dissolution is "amicable. We just reached too small a size to serve our clients' needs ... It was a great run."  The firm advised clients on matters involving corporate finance, securities, intellectual property, litigation, tax and real estate.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company materially misrepresented its net income for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 and the interim second, third, and fourth quarters. The Complaint also alleges that the Company improperly recognized revenues for certain cancelled consumer contracts, as well as other errors in the income statement. The Complaint alleges that the cumulative effect of all these errors caused an aggregate net loss of at least $43 to $49 million for fiscal 2006, as compared to the $17.3 million net loss from continuing operations the Company preliminarily announced for fiscal 2006. The Complaint also asserts that certain officers and directors of the Company were able to sell significant amounts of stock during the Class Period while the stock was artificially inflated. As a result of these adverse events, the Complaint asserts that shareholders were damaged.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed on behalf of Inphonic shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court within 90 days of today. If you wish to join the litigation or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm has expertise in prosecuting investor securities litigation and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the nation, concentrating its practice in securities class actions.

England's Football Association Premier League Ltd. and independent music publisher Bourne Co., are hitting Google and YouTube with a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging massive copyright infringement and encouraging other content owners whose videos have appeared on YouTube to join the suit.

"Defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging and facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube Web site," the lawsuit states.

The complaint, filed Friday in New York federal court, alleges that YouTube has purposely refused to remove copyrighted works from its site or employ "readily available technology" to prevent the infringement. Google, which bought the site in November for $1.65 billion, encourages YouTube to continue allowing copyrighted works to be posted by users, the lawsuit claims.

A spokesman for Google could not be immediately reached for comment.

The plaintiffs allege that YouTube and Google are able to identify copyrighted material and remove it as well as employ a filter system to prevent posting of infringing material but have failed to do so.
Advertisement
 
"From what I understand, YouTube will provide filtering to parties who are willing to license their content to YouTube on terms that are acceptable to YouTube," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney, William Hart of Proskauer Rose in New York. "YouTube is not offering filtering to content across the board. Although they say it's coming to larger copyright owners, they already acknowledge they have this technology for a preferred group, but they're not doing that, and should, for other copyright owners."

The Premier League is the most popular division of English soccer and is viewed in 204 countries. According to the complaint, several infringing clips have been posted almost immediately after games, including April matches between Manchester United and Everton and Middlesbrough and Tottenham.

Bourne claims its musical works are frequently posted on the site, including Jimmy Durante singing "Inka Dinka Doo" and Diana Krall singing "Let's Fall in Love." Many of Bourne's compositions allegedly were still posted at the time of the lawsuit's filing.

Hart said YouTube has taken more than seven days to take down infringing material even though the Digital Millennium Copyright Act requires an expeditious removal.

"If they're told this particular work is infringing, they take it down," he said. "Then, if someone reposts it, we're starting all over again. Once someone tries to post it again, it should be filtered out rather than going over the whole exercise again."

In the case of the Premier League, Hart said it has become a full-time job for someone at the organization to send notices to YouTube on a daily basis.

The proposed class action, he said, includes "any copyright owner who has not given any authorization for their content to appear" on YouTube. A Web site has been established, www.youtubeclassaction.com, to recruit potential members of the suit.

Hart believes that the case most likely will be consolidated with the recent lawsuit filed against YouTube and Google by Viacom. A separate infringement case against YouTube brought by photojournalist Robert Tur is pending in California.

In the Viacom case, filed in March in New York federal court, the media conglomerate is seeking more than $1 billion in damages and has identified more than 100,000 copyrighted clips posted without permission.

In an answer filed Monday, Google cites the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA as a defense.

"By seeking to make carriers and hosting providers liable for Internet communications, Viacom's complaint threatens the way hundreds of millions of people legitimately exchange information, news, entertainment and political and artistic expression," the defendants said in the response. "Google and YouTube respect the importance of intellectual property rights and not only comply with their safe harbor obligations under the DMCA but go well above and beyond what the law requires."

Google is making a similar argument in the Tur case.

In a statement released after Google's answer was filed, Viacom said: "This response ignores the most important fact of the suit, which is that YouTube does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA. It is obvious that YouTube has knowledge of infringing material on their site, and they are profiting from it."