The U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services has recently (February 26, 2015) made available
The U.S. National Agricultural Library (NAL) has debuted PubAg, a user-friendly search engine, which provides “enhanced access” to the public to search for and obtain research published by scientists at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The NAL is part of USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS).
Europe’s Article 29 Working Party, made up of data protection (or data privacy or information privacy) representatives from individual Member States of the European Union (EU), recently published guidelines for implementing the so-called “right to be forgotten” ruling, which was earlier handed down by Europe’s top court in May of this year.
From the first 2 paragraphs of the press release accompanying the report:
Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed on all continents. If left unchecked, climate change will increase the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems. However, options are available to adapt to climate change and implementing stringent mitigations activities can ensure that the impacts of climate change remain within a manageable range, creating a brighter and more sustainable future.
These are among the key findings of the Synthesis Report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on Sunday. The Synthesis Report distils and integrates the findings of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report produced by over 800 scientists and released over the past 13 months – the most comprehensive assessment of climate change ever undertaken.
Great news from our friends at CourtListener….
The CourtListener site is now adding oral arguments to the project,
and users can now search for oral
arguments and even get email alerts based on words in a case’s caption.
“We’re very excited to announce that CourtListener is currently in the process of rolling out support for Oral Argument audio. This is a feature that we’ve wanted for at least four years — our name is CourtListener, after all — and one that will bring a raft of new features to the project. We already have about 500 oral arguments on the site, and we’ve got many more we’re we’ll be adding over the coming weeks.
For now we are getting oral argument audio in real time from ten federal appellate courts. As we get this audio, we are using it to power a number of features:
- Oral Argument files become immediately available in our search results.
- A podcast is automatically available for every jurisdiction we support and for any query that you can dream up. Want a custom podcast containing all of the 9th circuit arguments for a particular litigant? You got it.
- You can now get alerts for oral arguments so you can be sure that you keep up with the latest coming out of the courts.
- For developers, there are a number of new endpoints in both our REST API and our bulk data API for audio files.
- Using the Free Law Seal Rookery, we are enhancing the audio we find on court websites by adding album art and better meta data.
For now, search results and alerts are limited to the data that is provided by court websites, so you cannot (yet) get alerted any time somebody says a certain word in court. Audio is a new area for us though and we’d absolutely love to automatically create transcripts for the courts, enabling such a feature. This would be an incredibly powerful feature, so if you are an expert on audio transcription, we’d love to hear from you and to work together on this.
Beyond all of the great features we’re rolling out today, oral argument data also marks an important turning point for the project because it lays the ground work for adding more types of data to CourtListener. It’s been a large undertaking adding a second type of data to the project, but adding a third will be much easier. Next in our hopper will likely be the content from RECAP so that you can create alerts, have powerful APIs, and do all the other things you expect from CourtListener, except this time, for documents from PACER.
We’re very excited about being able to provide oral argument data today and RECAP data tomorrow. We can’t wait to see what kinds of legal research and innovation these new features bring.”
From the news release, here are some new features/enhancements:
- New Feature: Congress.gov Resources
– A new resources section providing an A to Z list of hundreds of links related to Congress
– An expanded list of “most viewed” bills each day, archived to July 20, 2014
- New Feature: House Committee Hearing Videos
– Live streams of House Committee hearings and meetings, and an accompanying archive to January, 2012
- Improvement: Advanced Search
– Support for 30 new fields, including nominations, Congressional Record and name of member
- Improvement: Browse
– Days in session calendar view
– Roll Call votes
– Bill by sponsor/co-sponsor
We wanted to share as a tip the good fortune that might be had in a legal database’s collection of “Filings” when one is searching for withdrawn state court opinions. In our scenario, citations in both WestlawNext (“WLN”) and LexisAdvance (“LA”) indicated that a particular state supreme court opinion had been withdrawn. The WLN & LA results for the withdrawn opinion revealed only that the opinion had been substituted, but no longer contained the text for the withdrawn opinion. However, with some deep digging into WLN’s “Filings” linked to the substituted opinion, we were able to find a PDF copy of the withdrawn opinion attached as an exhibit to a petition for review. Often (and as was the case here) the HTML versions of these “Filings” lack referenced exhibits, but thank goodness for PDFs…particularly for these 25-year-old, pre-electronic-filing state court cases!
We hope you’re equally as lucky in gaining ready access to withdrawn state supreme court opinions!
Chile Fails to Meet International Obligations Towards Indigenous Peoples, Human Rights Experts Find
Book by international team of human rights experts documents violations of indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation
September 9, 2013, Santiago, Chile – Nearly five years after ratifying the International Labor Organization Convention 169 (“ILO 169”), Chile continues to violate indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation, according to a book released today by human rights experts in the Consorcio Norte-Sur. The Consorcio is a partnership between Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School, the Universidad Diego Portales (Chile), and the Universidad de Los Andes (Colombia).
The Spanish-language book, titled “No Nos Toman en Cuenta” (“They Don’t Consider Us”), provides the most comprehensive review of the consultation rights of Chile’s indigenous people to date. The book examines several ways that the Chilean government has failed to guarantee indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation, including the government’s failure to implement international norms within its domestic legal system. The book also features in-depth case studies that document specific rights violations caused by salmon farming projects in indigenous territory in the south of the country.
“Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consultation guaranteed by ILO 169 is intended to ensure that these historically marginalized groups are able to participate in a meaningful way in decisions that directly affect them,” said Jorge Contesse, former director of Universidad Diego Portales’ Human Rights Center, now a law professor at Rutgers School of Law-Newark. “The failure to implement this right not only violates Chile’s international legal obligations, but also perpetuates distrust between indigenous peoples and the Chilean government, fueling conflict between the two.”
The case of the salmon hatcheries studied in the book highlights this dynamic. Researchers found that often the only consultation-like procedures were conducted by private investors, who provided special benefits for select members of indigenous communities in return for their support. Community members told investigators that this impermissible abdication of the state’s obligation to consult created conflict and upset traditional leadership structures and decision-making processes.
A “Consensus Committee” comprised of government and indigenous representatives made some progress towards developing national standards for consultation procedures earlier this year. Since June, however, the negotiations have stalled. One of the key sticking points is what consultation procedures should apply to investment projects, like the salmon farming installations that form the basis of the book’s case studies.
“Our research shows that the consultation procedures used for the salmon hatcheries, which are very similar to the procedures the government continues to use for investment projects, do not meet international standards,” said Cristián Sanhueza, one of the primary authors of the book for the Universidad de Diego Portales.
“The Chilean government cannot wait indefinitely to implement the right to free, prior, and informed consultation,” stated Daniel Saver, a graduate of Harvard Law School and the other principal author of the book. “Given the recent progress made by the Consensus Committee, there is no better time than now for Chile to uphold its international obligations and establish a consultation procedure that itself is a product of adequate input from indigenous peoples.”
The book will be launched at an event hosted by the Universidad Diego Portales, in Santiago Chile, starting at 6:30pm. More information about the event is available in Spanish here. For an electronic version of the book, see here. For inquiries, please contact Cara Solomon or Susana Kuncar.
According to The Chronicle of Philanthropy, ProPublica — “an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest” — has begun an online, free service for searching the U.S. tax returns of over 600,000 non-profit organizations:
ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer
Hat tip to ResourceShelf.
Cross-posted at Law Library Blog.
A new library-related report of interest is the 83-page:
For the accompanying press release please see here.
The 5-page Executive Summary is here.
And for information about the ALA please see here.
Cross-posted on Law Library Blog.