DOCSLIB.ORG

Petition and Exhibits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Petition and Exhibits KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California ATTTORNEY GENER 2 ELIZABETH S. KIM ­ \,....i._jj ··,a:..i{/, ... _ Supervising Deputy Attorney General ·re£ co-) 3 SUSAN J. KA WALA Deputy Attorney General 4 State Bar No. 178612 455 Golden Gate A venue, Suite 11000 fJ50 [sITg[Q) 5 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5708 6 Fax: (415) 703-5480 E-mail: [email protected]. K'.\1 TCR'\JK CC'urt Executive Officer 7 Attorneys for the People ofthe State ofCalifornia l\MHL\ cm·:-, n SU't:RlOR COIJRT By: /(. Yarborough, Deputy 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF MARIN 10 11 j 12 13 0 52 3 8 INRE: CaseNo. l3 PR. EVA LINDSKOG TRUST (AKA LIVEWIRE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION. 14 LINDSKOG FOUNDATION). FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, AND 15 AN ACCOUNTING; AND THEPEOPLE OF THE STATE OF DECLARATION OF SUSAN J. KAWALA 16 CALIFORNIA, WITH EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 17 Petitioner, [Request for Judicial Notice filed 18 v. concurrently herewith] 19 . [Prob. Code, §§ 15002, 15004, 15202, WILLIAM SHINE, .INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 15403,15642,16002,16004,16006,16009, 20 TRUSTEE OF THE EVALINDSKOG TRUST, 16049, 16102, 16400, _16420, 17000, 17005, MARTY MANCEBO, TNDIVIDUALLYAND As 17200, 17203, 17210; Gov. Code,§ 12598] 21 TRUSTEE OF THE EvALINDSKOG TRU$T, THOMAS HARRINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY 22 AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE EvALINDSKOG TRUST, AND DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,· Date: 23 Time: Respondents. Dept: 24 25 26 Petitioner, the Attorney General of the State of California, seeks an order removing the 27 current trustees of the Eva Lindskog Trust, each of whom is named as a respondent in this 28 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, AND AN ACCOUNTING 1 Petition, and appointing a Receiver to take over, manage, and control the affairs of the Eva 2 Lindskog Trust; conduct an accounting of all Trust assets; marshal, preserve and recover the. Trust I I 3 assets that were wrongfully diverted; and to do all other things authorized by the Court. I I 4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5 1. Petitioner is the duly constituted Attorney General of California and in such capacity 6 is entitled to bring this Petition under Government Code section 12591, Probate Code sections 7 15002, 15004, 15462 and 17210, and common law, as the subject trust is a charitable trust under 8 the jurisdiction and supervision of the Attorney General. 9 2. The Petition is properly brought before this Court because the Marin County Superior 10 Court presided over all prior actions regarding the underlying testainentary trusts of Robert and 11 Eva Lindskog, including Marin County Superior Court Case Nos. PR055431 and PR045697. 12 (Prob. Code, § 17005, subd. (a)(2).) Moreover, the current trustees ofthe Eva Lindskog Trust, at 13 all times relevant, have engaged in conduct that violates the tenns of a Settlement Agreement that I 14 this court approved in an Order Approving SettlementAgreement,Filed-Endorsed July 28, 2008. 15 The Probate Code confers exclusive jurisdiction ofproceedings concerning the internal affairs of 16 trusts to the superior court having jurisdiction over the trust. (Id at§ 17000, subd. (a).) 17 The factual allegations below are made under information and belief: 18 PARTIES 19 3. Petitioner is the Attorney General of the State of California and is charged with the 20 general supervision of all organizations and individuals who obtain, hold or control property in 21 trust for charitable and eleemosynary purposes. The Attorney General is authorized to enforce, in 22 the name of the People of this State, the provisions of the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers 23 for Charitable Purposes Act (Gov. Code,§ 12580 et seq.), the Probate Code (Prob. Code, § 15000 24 25 I Petitioner concurrently files a Request for Judicial Notice of Marin County Superior 26 Court Case No. PR055431, entitled In re Lindskog 1995 Trust Dated August I, 1995, Petition to Remove Trustee, For Surcharge ofTrustee,· Objections to Trustee's Accounting,· and For 27 Financial Abuse ofElders, filed on November 30, 2005, because this earlier case contains relevant historical facts and exhibits cited in this Petition. 28 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, AND AN ACCOUNTING = et seq., 16000 et seq., and 17000 et seq.), and the Nonprofit Corporation Law (Corp. Code, § 2 5000 et seq.). 3 4. Respondent William Shine ("Shine") has been a trustee of the Eva Lindskog' s 4 charitable remainder trust, presently known as the "Eva Lindskog Trust," since her death in 5 January 2004. From 2004 to a date uncertain, Shine was also the sole trustee of the Lindskog 6 1995 Revocable Trust Agreement, dated August 1, 1995. As a trustee of the Eva Lindskog Trust, 7 Shine owes a fiduciary duty to the charitable beneficiaries of this Trust, who are the People of the 8 State of California. Shine also was and is the tax consultant for the Eva Lindskog Trust. Shine is 9 a resident of Mill Valley, California. 10 5. Respondent Marty Mancebo ("Mancebo") has been a trustee of the Eva Lindskog 11 Trust since 2011. Mancebo is a long-time friend of Shine. Mancebo was appointed as a trustee 12 after the Attorney General initiated. an audit of thet Eva Lindskog Trust. As of September 2013, 13 Mancebo had no knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of a charitable trustee . As a trustee 14 of the Eva Lindskog Trust, Mancebo owes a fiduciary duty to the charitable beneficiaries of this 15 Trust Mancebo.is a resident of Walnut Creek; California. 16 6. Respondent Thomas Harrington.("Harrington") has been a trustee ofthe Eva 17 Lindskog Trust since 2011. Harrington is a long-time friend of Shine. Harrington was appointed . 18 as a trustee after the Attorney General initiated an audit ofthe Eva Lindskog Trust. As of 19 September 2013, Harrington had no knowledge of the duties and responsibilities of a charitable 20 trustee. As a trustee of the Eva Lindskog Trust, Harrington owes a fiduciary duty to the 21 charitable beneficiaries of this Trust. Harrington is a resident of San Francisco, California. 22 7. Respondent DOES 1-20 are the fictitious names ofrespondents who were trustees, 23 agents, or key employees of the Eva Lindskog Trust, and those who have acted on behalf of or as 24 agent, servant or employee of one or more of the named respondents and DOES 1-20, or who 25 have directly or indirectly participated or acted in concert with them in the acts and omissions 26 described in the Petition, but whose true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or 27 otherwise, are presently unknown to petitioner. Petitiorier will seek leave to amend this Petition 28 when their true names are discovered. 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, AND AN ACCOUNTING FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 8. 1995 Trust. Robert and Eva Lindskog executed a testamentary trust entitled the 3 "Lindskog 1995 Revocable Trust Agreement," dated August 1, 1995 (" 1995 Trust"). A copy of 4 the 1995 Trust was filed with the "Petition to Remove Trustee, For Surcharge ofTrustee, For 5 Objections to Trustee's Accounting; And Financial Abuse ofElders," in Marin County Superior 6 Court, Case No. PR05543 l. The above-cited Petition and the 1995 Trust are attached as Exhibit 7 A to the Declaration of Susan J. Kawala ("Kawala Declaration"), attached hereto and also filed in 8 support of Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice. The 1995 Trust designated Robert and Eva 9 Lindskog as the trustees, but, in or around 2001, Eva Lindskog ("Eva") became the sole trustee 10 when Robert Lindskog began to suffer from dementia and Eva became his Attorney-in-Fact. 11 9. The 1995 Trust was amended by Eva on: February 20, 2002, December 9, 2003, and 12 August 27, 2003. 13 10. Creation of the Charitable Remainder Trust. In the February 20, 2002, amendment to 14 the 1995 Trust ("Amendment Number One''), Eva established a charitable remainder trust to be 15 named the "Livewire Lindskog Foundation" ("the Foundation"). (Exhibit A to Kawala: 16 Declaration.) 17 11 A separate document, dated February 20, 2002, and entitled "The Terms of the 18 Livewire Lindskog Foundationt lists "Prohibited Transactions" in Paragraph11. (Exhibit B to 19 Kawala Declaration.) In accordance with Paragraph 11, the trustee is prohibited from: 1) 20 engaging in self-dealing transactions; 2) retaining business holdings that would subject the 21 charitable remainder trust to tax liability; and 3) making any investments that would subject the 22 charitable remainder trust to tax liability. (Ibid.) 23 12. In the August 27, 2003 amendment to the 1995 Trust ("Amendment Number Three"), 24 Eva sets forth the purpose for which the Foundation was to be formed: to advance "efforts in the 25 fields of the fine arts, education, human resources development, environmental conservation and 26 medicine, and advanc [e] the interests of other charitable organizations engaged in the foregoing 27 fields, without limiting the generality of the foregoing trust purposes." (Exhibit A to Kawala 28 Declaration.) 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PETITION FOR REMOVAL OF TRUSTEES, APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER, AND AN ACCOUNTING I 1 13. On August 27, 2003, Eva also executed a governance document for the Foundation. 2 (Exhibit C to Kawala Declaration.) In Article Two, Subsection B of this document, Eva stated 3 that the Foundation "shall be qualified as a charitable trust and the Trustees shall do all things 4 necessary under federal, state and local law to qualify the [Foundation] as an exempt charitable 5 trust within the meaning of Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code." (Ibid.) 6 14.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ESTATE PLANNING: Current Developments and Hot Topics December 2013
    ESTATE PLANNING: Current Developments and Hot Topics December 2013 The Estate Planner’s “Playbook” for 2013 and Going Forward Under the Post-ATRA “New Normal” of Permanent Large Exemptions and Portability. Steve R. Akers Senior Fiduciary Counsel — Southwest Region, Bessemer Trust 300 Crescent Court, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75201 214-981-9407 [email protected] www.bessemer.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 and “3.8% Medicare Tax” ................................ 1 2. Administration’s Fiscal Year 2014 Revenue Proposals ................................................. 8 3. Treasury-IRS Priority Guidance Plan ........................................................................ 17 4. Possible Tax Reform Legislative Developments.......................................................... 18 5. Planning for Donors Who Made Large 2012 Gifts ...................................................... 20 6. Generation Skipping Transfer Tax Reporting Issues ................................................... 26 7. General Approaches to Estate Planning Following ATRA; The “New Normal”................ 31 8. Portability ............................................................................................................. 41 9. Trust and Estate Planning Considerations for 3.8% Tax on Net Investment Income and Income Taxation of Trusts ....................................................................................... 57 10. Strategies to Preserve Basis Adjustment Upon Grantor’s Death ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE CLEVELAN ORCHESTRA California Masterwor S
    ����������������������� �������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������ �������������������������������������� �������� ������������������������������� ��������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������� �������������������� ������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������� ��������������������������������������������� ������������������������ ������������������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ����������������������������� ����� ������������������������������������������������ ���������������� ���������������������������������������� ��������������������������� ���������������������������������������� ��������� ������������������������������������� ���������� ��������������� ������������� ������ ������������� ��������� ������������� ������������������ ��������������� ����������� �������������������������������� ����������������� ����� �������� �������������� ��������� ���������������������� Welcome to the Cleveland Museum of Art The Cleveland Orchestra’s performances in the museum California Masterworks – Program 1 in May 2011 were a milestone event and, according to the Gartner Auditorium, The Cleveland Museum of Art Plain Dealer, among the year’s “high notes” in classical Wednesday evening, May 1, 2013, at 7:30 p.m. music. We are delighted to once again welcome The James Feddeck, conductor Cleveland Orchestra to the Cleveland Museum of Art as this groundbreaking collaboration between two of HENRY COWELL Sinfonietta
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform? Nancy J
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 9 | Issue 2 Article 2 2014 Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform? Nancy J. Knauer Recommended Citation Nancy J. Knauer, Critical Tax Policy: a Pathway to Reform?, 9 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 206 (2014). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol9/iss2/2 This 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 Law & Social Policy by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Vol. 9, Issue 2 (2014) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy CRITICAL TAX POLICY : A PATHWAY TO REFORM ? ∗ Nancy J. Knauer TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 207 I. THE COSTS OF FALSE NEUTRALITY ............................................................... 214 A. All Part of a Larger “Blueprint” ............................................................ 215 B. Hidden Choices and Embedded Values .................................................. 218 Taxpayer neutrality ..................................................................................... 219 Equity and efficiency .................................................................................. 221 C. Critical Tax Theory and Scholarship ...................................................... 223 II. CHOOSING A CRITICAL
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibiting Product Placement and the Use of Characters in Marketing to Children by Professor Angela J. Campbell Georgetown Univ
    PROHIBITING PRODUCT PLACEMENT AND THE USE OF CHARACTERS IN MARKETING TO CHILDREN BY PROFESSOR ANGELA J. CAMPBELL1 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER (DRAFT September 7, 2005) 1 Professor Campbell thanks Natalie Smith for her excellent research assistance, Russell Sullivan for pointing out examples of product placements, and David Vladeck, Dale Kunkel, Jennifer Prime, and Marvin Ammori for their helpful suggestions. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 I. Product Placements............................................................................................................. 4 A. The Practice of Product Placement......................................................................... 4 B. The Regulation of Product Placements................................................................. 11 II. Character Marketing......................................................................................................... 16 A. The Practice of Celebrity Spokes-Character Marketing ....................................... 17 B. The Regulation of Spokes-Character Marketing .................................................. 20 1. FCC Regulation of Host-Selling............................................................... 21 2. CARU Guidelines..................................................................................... 22 3. Federal Trade Commission....................................................................... 24
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION to the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION on HUMAN RIGHTS
    PETITION to the INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS submitted by THE BORDER ACTION NETWORK in relation to VICTIMS OF ANTI-IMMIGRANT ACTIVITIES AND VIGILANTE VIOLENCE IN SOUTHERN ARIZONA against THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S. James Anaya Representative of the Petitioner Andrew Stevenson Student Advocate INTERNATIONAL HUMANRIGHTS ADVOCACYWORKSHOP University of Arizona, Rogers College of Law ' 1201 E. Speedway Blvd. Tucson, Arizona 8572 1-0176 USA Tel. +1 520 626 6341 * Fax + 1 520 621 9140 Email: [email protected] CONTENTS I . Introduction ....................................................................................................................1 I1. Jurisdiction .....................................................................................................................2 I11 . The Victims and the Petitioner .....................................................................................2 IV . Facts ..............................................................................................................................3 A . A Brief History of Immigration to Arizona and Reactive Hostility .........................5 B . Recent Increases in Anti-Immigrant Activity in Southern Arizona ..........................6 C . Violent and Illegal Acts Committed by Anti-Immigrant Groups Toward Immigrants and Mexican-Americans in Southern Arizona. and the Resulting Climate of Fear and Intimidation in the Area ................................................................................................10 D . Citizen
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, A PROJECT OF THE URBAN JUSTICE CENTER, INC., ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ITS CLIENTS, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI JEFFREY B. WALL Acting Solicitor General Counsel of Record CHAD A. READLER Acting Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General HASHIM M. MOOPPAN Deputy Assistant Attorney General JONATHAN C. BOND Assistant to the Solicitor General AUGUST E. FLENTJE Special Counsel DOUGLAS N. LETTER SHARON SWINGLE H. THOMAS BYRON III LOWELL V. STURGILL JR. Attorneys Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 [email protected] (202) 514-2217 QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prohibit or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in the Nation’s interest. Exercising that authority, the President issued Executive Order No. 13,780, 82 Fed. Reg. 13,209 (Mar. 9, 2017). Section 2(c) of that Order suspends for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals from six countries that Congress or the Executive previously designated as presenting heightened terrorism-related risks, subject to case-by-case waivers. The district court issued, and the court of appeals upheld, a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Section 2(c) against any person worldwide, because both courts concluded that the suspension violates the Establishment Clause. The questions presented are: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Fake News and Misinformation Policy Lab Practicum (Spring 2017)
    ST ANFORD Fake News & Misinformation Policy Practicum 2017 PRACTICUM RESEARCFacebookH TEAM: Research Team Jacob Finkel, JD ’19, Steven Jiang,Mufan BS ’17, Luo, PhD ‘22 Mufan Luo, PhD ’22, Rebecca Mears, JD/MPP ’19, Danaë Metaxa-Kakavouli, PhD ’20Camille, Peeples, JD ‘18 Camille Peeples, JD ’18, BrendanArjun Sasso, Shenoy,JD ’19, JD ‘19 Arjun Shenoy, JD ’19, Vincent Sheu, JD/MS ’18 , Nicolás Torres-Echeverry, JSM ’17 Google Research Team INSTRUCTOR AND PROJECTDanaë LEAD MetaxaS: -Kakavouli, PhD ‘20 Nicolás Torres-Echeverry, JSM ‘17 SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD Edwin A. Heafey, Jr., Visiting Professor of Law Luciana Herman, Ph.D. Twitter Research Team Lecturer in Law Program Director, Law and Policy LabJacob Finkel, JD ‘19 Steven Jiang, BS ‘17 Ashwin Aravind, JD ‘18 Teaching Assistant Rebecca Mears, JD/MPP ‘19 Katie Joseff, MA ‘19 Research Assistant Reddit Research Team October POLICY CLIENT: Brendan Sasso, JD ‘19 Hewlett Foundation MadisonVincent Initiative Sheu, JD/MS ’18 2017 1 Acknowledgements This report reflects the research and analysis of an inter-disciplinary law and graduate student team enrolled in the Stanford Law School Fake News and Misinformation Policy Lab Practicum (Spring 2017). Under the guidance of instructor Senator Russ Feingold, the Edwin A. Heafey Visiting Professor of Law, the practicum surveyed the roles of four major online platforms in the spread of fake news beginning with the 2016 U.S. election. Assisting Senator Feingold in the practicum were Policy Lab Program Director and Lecturer Luciana Herman, Ph.D., and Teaching Assistant Ashwin Aravind, J.D. ’18. Brendan Sasso, J.D. ’19, served as the exceptional lead student editor for the report.
    [Show full text]
  • FOLK DANCE SCENE First Class Mail 4362 COOLIDGE AVE
    FOLK DANCE SCENE First Class Mail 4362 COOLIDGE AVE. U.S. POSTAGE LOS ANGELES, CA 90066 PAID Culver City, CA Permit No. 69 First Class Mail Dated Material ORDER FORM Please enter my subscription to FOLK DANCE SCENE for one year, beginning with the next published issue. Subscription rate: $15.00/year (U.S. First Class), $18.00/year in U.S. currency (Foreign) Published monthly except for June/July and December/January issues. NAME _________________________________________ ADDRESS _________________________________________ PHONE (_____)_____–________ CITY _________________________________________ STATE __________________ E-MAIL _________________________________________ ZIP __________–________ Please mail subscription orders to the Subscription Office: 2010 Parnell Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90025 (Allow 6-8 weeks for subscription to go into effect if order is mailed after the 10th of the month.) Published by the Folk Dance Federation of California, South Volume 38, No. 2 March 2002 Folk Dance Scene Committee Club Directory Coordinators Jay Michtom [email protected] (818) 368-1957 Jill Michtom [email protected] (818) 368-1957 Beginner’s Classes Calendar Jay Michtom [email protected] (818) 368-1957 On the Scene Jill Michtom [email protected] (818) 368-1957 Club Time Contact Location Club Directory Steve Himel [email protected] (949) 646-7082 CABRILLO INT'L FOLK Tue 7:00-8:00 (858) 459-1336 Georgina SAN DIEGO, Balboa Park Club Contributing Editor Richard Duree [email protected] (714) 641-7450 DANCERS Thu 7:30-8:30 (619) 445-4907
    [Show full text]
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: the 2010 Tax Act Reinstated the Estate and Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (Hereafter GST) for 2010
    We close this week with Frank Berall’s comprehensive analysis of the Tax Reform Act of 2010. As members know, Frank is a LISI Commentator Team Member, and has previously provided members with commentary on the planning issues caused by the absence (until now) of estate and GST taxes in Estate Planning Newsletter #1705. Frank S. Berall, principal of Copp & Berall, LLP and Senior Tax Consultant to Andros, Floyd & Miller, P.C., both of Hartford, CT, is Chair of the newly revived Federal Tax Institute of New England. He was Co- chair (from 1977 through 2009) with Prof. Regis Campfield, of the Notre Dame Estate and Tax Planning Institute, is on the editorial boards of the Connecticut Bar Journal, the Connecticut Lawyer and Estate Planning, was a former Regent of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, a past Vice President of the International Academy of Estate and Trust Law, Co- chair of the Hartford Tax Institute’s Advisory Council for 10 years, and has been a part-time faculty member at the Yale Law School, the University of Connecticut Law School and the University of Hartford’s Graduate Tax Program. Frank, a frequent speaker at many tax institutes, has published 133 articles, eight commentaries for Steve Leimberg’s Estate Planning Newsletter, two articles on the Connecticut Bar Association’s website, portions of 13 books, co-authored two Tax Management Portfolios and recently submitted a final draft of a portfolio on same-sex relationships. He has been recognized for his expertise in both trust and estate law as well as tax law in all 30 editions of the Best Lawyers in America, is one of the top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers and the New York area’s Best Lawyers.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUSE AMENDMENT Bill No. SB 7072 (2021) Amendment No
    HOUSE AMENDMENT Bill No. SB 7072 (2021) Amendment No. CHAMBER ACTION Senate House . 1 Representative Ingoglia offered the following: 2 3 Amendment (with title amendment) 4 Remove everything after the enacting clause and insert: 5 Section 1. The Legislature finds that: 6 (1) Social media platforms represent an extraordinary 7 advance in communication technology for Floridians. 8 (2) Users should be afforded control over their personal 9 information related to social media platforms. 10 (3) Floridians increasingly rely on social media platforms 11 to express their opinions. 12 (4) Social media platforms have transformed into the new 13 public town square. 942955 Approved For Filing: 4/26/2021 10:55:05 PM Page 1 of 24 HOUSE AMENDMENT Bill No. SB 7072 (2021) Amendment No. 14 (5) Social media platforms have become as important for 15 conveying public opinion as public utilities are for supporting 16 modern society. 17 (6) Social media platforms hold a unique place in 18 preserving first amendment protections for all Floridians and 19 should be treated similarly to common carriers. 20 (7) Social media platforms that unfairly censor, shadow 21 ban, deplatform, or apply post-prioritization algorithms to 22 Florida candidates, Florida users, or Florida residents are not 23 acting in good faith. 24 (8) Social media platforms should not take any action in 25 bad faith to restrict access or availability to Floridians. 26 (9) Social media platforms have unfairly censored, shadow 27 banned, deplatformed, and applied post-prioritization algorithms 28 to Floridians. 29 (10) The state has a substantial interest in protecting 30 its residents from inconsistent and unfair actions by social 31 media platforms.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives
    AIR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives Shazeda Ahmed (UC Berkeley), Natasha E. Bajema (NDU), Samuel Bendett (CNA), Benjamin Angel Chang (MIT), Rogier Creemers (Leiden University), Chris C. Demchak (Naval War College), Sarah W. Denton (George Mason University), Jeffrey Ding (Oxford), Samantha Hoffman (MERICS), Regina Joseph (Pytho LLC), Elsa Kania (Harvard), Jaclyn Kerr (LLNL), Lydia Kostopoulos (LKCYBER), James A. Lewis (CSIS), Martin Libicki (USNA), Herbert Lin (Stanford), Kacie Miura (MIT), Roger Morgus (New America), Rachel Esplin Odell (MIT), Eleonore Pauwels (United Nations University), Lora Saalman (EastWest Institute), Jennifer Snow (USSOCOM), Laura Steckman (MITRE), Valentin Weber (Oxford) Air University Press Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Opening remarks provided by: Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data Brig Gen Alexus Grynkewich (JS J39) Names: TBD. and Lawrence Freedman (King’s College, Title: Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order : Techno- London) logical, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives / Nicholas D. Wright. Editor: Other titles: TBD Nicholas D. Wright (Intelligent Biology) Description: TBD Identifiers: TBD Integration Editor: Subjects: TBD Mariah C. Yager (JS/J39/SMA/NSI) Classification: TBD LC record available at TBD AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS COLLABORATION TEAM Published by Air University Press in October
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting Digital Fingerprints: Tracing Chinese Disinformation in Taiwan
    Detecting Digital Fingerprints: Tracing Chinese Disinformation in Taiwan By: A Joint Report from: Nick Monaco Institute for the Future’s Digital Intelligence Lab Melanie Smith Graphika Amy Studdart The International Republican Institute 08 / 2020 Acknowledgments The authors and organizations who produced this report are deeply grateful to our partners in Taiwan, who generously provided time and insights to help this project come to fruition. This report was only possible due to the incredible dedication of the civil society and academic community in Taiwan, which should inspire any democracy looking to protect itself from malign actors. Members of this community For their assistance in several include but are not limited to: aspects of this report the authors also thank: All Interview Subjects g0v.tw Projects Gary Schmitt 0archive Marina Gorbis Cofacts Nate Teblunthuis DoubleThink Lab Sylvie Liaw Taiwan FactCheck Center Sam Woolley The Reporter Katie Joseff Taiwan Foundation for Democracy Camille François Global Taiwan Institute Daniel Twining National Chengchi University Election Johanna Kao Study Center David Shullman Prospect Foundation Adam King Chris Olsen Hsieh Yauling The Dragon’s Digital Fingerprint: Tracing Chinese Disinformation in Taiwan 2 Graphika is the network Institute for the Future’s The International Republican analysis firm that empowers (IFTF) Digital Intelligence Lab Institute (IRI) is one of the Fortune 500 companies, (DigIntel) is a social scientific world’s leading international Silicon Valley, human rights research entity conducting democracy development organizations, and universities work on the most pressing organizations. The nonpartisan, to navigate the cybersocial issues at the intersection of nongovernmental institute terrain. With rigorous and technology and society.
    [Show full text]