United States District Court Southern District: Fill & Download for Free

A few years ago I thought a question like this was sacrilege. I'm now fairly convinced of the need for smaller states. I would say states should ideally be divided into units of 1-2 crore people that are both easy to manage as well as provide a number of new cities.In fact, I would go back to how ancient Tamils organized themselves into Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas [& Pallavas]. It makes the perfect sense. They grew Tamil as well the respective economies. These regions are fairly far from each other, have different geographies, economies & challenges.In the modern day, the concerns of Kaveri delta or say pollution of Thamirabharani or the development of the backward Dharmapuri hardly get an attention among the Chennaivasis. Most Chennai citizens might have never even visited Nagerkoil or any of the other southern districts.Chola Nadu would focus on agriculture & put water conservation at its top priority. The mountainous Chera Nadu could focus on technology, plantations, tourism & heavy industries. The coastal Pandya Nadu could focus on fishing, shipping, while the Pallava Nadu with Chennai would focus on industries and technology.Instead of putting all our eggs on one Chennai, the Tamil region could have now 4 capitals and each city would try to out do the other. Madurai, Thanjavur and Karur could be restored to their old glory as the capitals of Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras respectively. They don't need to wait in the shadows of some distant state capital. Their Chief Ministers will be right next to them, their high courts would be fully functional units, they would have modern airports, industries and their secretariats more attuned to local problems.I grew up in Chola territory, studied college in Pandya territory and mostly settled in Pallava territory. The glorious Chola territory is now an ignored & blighted land. One of India's glorious empires came from there and its present looks appaling. I cannot wait for a time when Thanjavur can be a capital city of its own and be a dynamo it once was. Same for Karur and Madurai. Imagine having 4 prosperous states speaking Tamil.In the following map, my only change would be to combine Thondai & Nadu Nadu to form the Pallava Nadu.

The presence or absence of compensation is not in any way an element in the creation of an attorney-client privilege. Magnetar Technologies Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Park Inc. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 22, 2012 886 F.Supp.2d 466 2012 WL 3609715 held that “The attorney-client privilege applies only if: (1) there is a communication, (2) made between privileged persons, (3) in confidence, (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.” Note not one word about compensation. State laws are in agreement. McClary v. Walsh United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division. July 25, 2000 202 F.R.D. 286, applying Alabama law and holding that “Under Alabama law, not every communication between a lawyer and another person is privileged, and the privilege against disclosure requires (1) an attorney-client relationship, that is, an understanding between the parties to the communication that the lawyer has assumed certain legal responsibilities to advise and guide the client on legal matters, (2) a communication, and (3) the communication must be intended to be confidential.”It is entirely possible that Mr. Giuliani is not acting as a lawyer for Trump, not because he says he is not receiving any compensation (keeping in mind that being able to sell or barter access to Trump is, in itself, a form of compensation), but because one of the elements is that the lawyer must be rendering legal advice. There are plenty of cases saying that business advice does not create the attorney-client relationship if that does not encompass legal advice.

In Schenck, the US Supreme Court held that the First Amendment did not protect speech which posed “a clear and present danger.” It offered as a test the example of someone shouting “Fire!” In a crowded theater. Absent a fire, the Constitution does not permit that speech because of the dangerous situation one might reasonably expect to ensue.A more appropriate legal precedent is The New York Times Company v. United States (1971) in which the court ruled the New York Times could publish the Pentagon Papers.The Pentagon Papers were a group of documents demonstrating that from at least 1967 the leadership of the United States armed forces regarded the Vietnam War as unwinnable. The Times began publishing articles exposing this information and the Nixon administration sought a legal injunction preventing the publication of any more, for reasons of national security.Ultimately, the Court’s ruling allowed the Times to resume publication of its reports, but it was a divided Court. There yet remains an awful lot of wiggle room for “national security” to be invoked.Your lagniappe: In the course of double-checking facts for this post, I’ve acquired a new hero, and what a hero he was, too! Meet Federal judge Murray Gurfein of the District Court for the Southern District of New York:The government argued for an injunction preventing publication, saying "serious injuries are being inflicted on our foreign relations, to the benefit of other nations opposed to our foreign relations, to the benefit of other nations opposed to our form of government."To which the (very) Honorable Judge Gurfein replied "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."Words to preserve the Republic by.