DOCSLIB.ORG

The Reporterpublished by the American Law Institute

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VOLUME 35 • NUMBER 2 WINTER / SPRING 2013 The ReporterPublished By The American Law Institute DEDICATED TO CLARIFYING AND IMPROVING THE LAW X The President’s Letter New @90 We have begun the 90th year of The in 1923 was George Wickersham, not would feel that it both enriches our dialogue American Law Institute in fine style. only a distinguished lawyer, but a former and our perspective and better serves our With enthusiastic applause, our Council Attorney General of the United States under contemporary democracy. in January unanimously elected Daniel President William Howard Taft (another of Meltzer, Story Professor of Law at Harvard, our founders). While these two men were Judge Diane Wood and the Nominating as the successor Director to Professor Lance clearly revolutionary thinkers about what Committee have been working overtime to Liebman. Dan will begin his tenure at the should be done to improve American law fill our officer and Council positions. Before close of the Annual Meeting in May 2014. so that it better serves society, I cannot the Annual Meeting in May, you will receive Dan continues the line of distinguished help but wonder what Attorney General information about nominees for positions thinkers who have given their time and Wickersham would have thought of a New on our Council who are recommended to energy to the improvement of American law Mexico lawyer (we were still a very young you by the Nominating Committee and through the ALI. state in 1923), so different in obvious ways, the Council. You will be proud, I think, of sitting figuratively in his seat. Probably not their distinguished backgrounds of academ- Your President, however, may be a very much. But I think all of the founders would ic excellence and service to the profession. different matter. I began writing today by applaud the diversity in our ranks and in remembering that the first ALI President leadership positions on the Council, and continued on page 2 Annual Meeting Agenda Includes Inside… Four Drafts for Member Approval Meltzer to Succeed Liebman as ALI Director in May 2014 Ten projects, including a final installment of basic liability insurance contract principles page 3 the Restatement Third of Employment Law, and §§ 12 to 23 of Chapter 2, Topic 1, deal- are slated for approval or discussion at the ing with the defense of potentially insured Webster and Hazard to Be Institute’s 90th Annual Meeting, to be held liability claims. Honored at Annual Meeting at The Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, page 4 DC, from May 20 to 22. On Monday morn- On Tuesday morning, May 21, Reporters ing, May 20, Reporters George A. Bermann, Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin E. Murphy Q&A with new ALI member Jack J. Coe, Jr., Christopher R. Drahozal, will present the first Discussion Draft of Kami Chavis Simmons of and Catherine A. Rogers are sub- Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault Wake Forest mitting for membership approv- and Related Offenses, covering page 6 al their third Tentative Draft § 213.6 (procedural and eviden- of Restatement Third, The tiary provisions applicable to Friedman, Marshall to Take U.S. Law of International Article 213 of the Model Penal Office May 22 Commercial Arbitration, Code on sexual offenses) and page 10 covering the two Topics not § 213.7 (collateral consequenc- reached at last year’s Annual es of conviction). On Tuesday ALI Publishes New Concise Meeting: conduct of post-award afternoon, Reporters Kevin R. Restatement of Torts actions and correction, modification, Reitz and Cecelia M. Klingele will page 11 and remand of awards. On Monday after- present Discussion Draft No. 5 of Model noon, Reporters Tom Baker and Kyle D. Penal Code: Sentencing, which deals with Logue will also submit for approval the first authorized disposition of offenders, col- Tentative Draft of Principles of the Law of lateral consequences of criminal conviction, Liability Insurance, covering Chapter 1 on continued on page 3 The President’s Letter continued from page 1 After a discussion that included the mem- May 2013, and its charter to ensure by Associate Justice Goodwin Liu of the bers at last year’s Annual Meeting and diversity of all kinds will be delegated California Supreme Court, will meet continued over the last two Council to the Membership Committee and on April 15 having read mountains of meetings, the Council also approved ad hoc committees. scholarly writing to select the two newest some changes in the process by which we Young Scholars, one of whom will pre- elect members. These were presented to These proposals have been referred to the sent at this Annual Meeting. the Council by Judge Paul Friedman of Governance Committee for study and the U.S. District Court for the District recommendation of whatever changes in Prepare yourself for being captured for of Columbia, Chair of the Ad Hoc bylaws, charters, or rules may be required. posterity in our 90th-birthday portrait. Committee on Membership Process, Though I am looking at our founders which, after Council approval, has now After these have been completed and with deepest respect and admiration, I concluded its work. The key elements, approved, we will turn our attention to am also thinking of a diet in preparation. which will be presented to you in detail considering whether changes are needed at the Annual Meeting, are these: in our current procedure for electing Hope spring comes easily to you and international members. For now, we springs eternal as well. 1. There is no change in the ability of will continue with the current ad hoc any member to forward a candidate International Membership Committee, Roberta for membership to the Membership to which the Membership Committee Roberta Cooper Ramo Committee. forwards nominations of candidates from President other countries. 2. Perhaps the most important change [email protected] (effective June 2014) is that the pro- I hope that you are planning to come to cess will be confidential, meaning the 90th Annual Meeting. Not only will the goal is to have the candidate there be an outstanding menu of speak- editor be unaware of the nomination until ers and projects for your discussion and Marianne M. Walker the Membership Committee has for- approval, but we are working on how (215) 243-1627 warded it for approval to the Council to take a picture at the 90th dinner on [email protected] and it is approved by the Council. May 21 in the same panoramic style as An approved candidate would then the original 1923 dinner, but with a far associate editor become a member after agreeing to richer palette. Todd David Feldman the requirements of membership. (215) 243-1682 We are working hard this spring in [email protected] 3. The Membership Committee will moving along a number of important be enlarged to take on the work of projects, including Indian Law, Election membership information more rigorous vetting of candidates, Law, Privacy, and the Foreign Relations Beth M. Goldstein and new Regional Advisory Groups Law of the United States. We were in (215) 243-1666 may be asked by the Membership DC on February 21 with the second [email protected] Committee to help vet candidates and Young Scholars Invitational Conference: to propose candidates who reside in Bringing Together Copyright and Patent production & design their regions. Law in Court, led by Professor Jeanne Matthew Born Fromer of NYU, one of our two origi- (215) 243-1685 4. The Outreach Committee will sunset nal Young Scholars Medal winners. Our [email protected] at the end of the Annual Meeting in current Young Scholars Committee, led contributors to this issue: Pat Daly, Shannon Duffy Planning to Attend ALI’s 90th Annual Meeting in Washington, DC? The ALI Reporter (ISSN 0164-5757) is pub- lished quarterly by The American Law Insti- Discounted room rates are available at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel (meeting tute, 4025 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3099. Periodicals U.S. postage paid at headquarters), the Washington Marriott Hotel, and the Club Quarters. Lancaster, PA. Reservation information can be found on the ALI website: http://2013am.ali. POSTMASTER: Send address changes and any org/. ALI group rates are valid until April 26 or until the ALI room block is other communications to 4025 Chestnut Street, full, whichever comes first. Questions? Contact our Meetings Department at Philadelphia, PA 19104-3099. (215) 243-1657 or [email protected]. 2 | The ALI Reporter Harvard Law Professor Daniel Meltzer to Succeed Lance Liebman as ALI Director in May 2014 devotion to public service grace Harvard Law School and now will also wonderfully advance the American Law Institute’s vital proj- ects improving law and legal administration for the public good.” Professor Meltzer, who joined Harvard Law School’s faculty in 1982, received his A.B. in Economics from Harvard University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduation, he clerked for Judge Carl E. McGowan of the District of Columbia Circuit and for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart. He recently served in the Office of White House Counsel, where he advised President Obama on issues including terrorism, healthcare reform, and prep- aration for the confirmation hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Daniel J. Meltzer, the Story Professor of Law at Harvard Law After leaving that position, he was appointed to the President’s School, has been named Director Designate of The American Law Intelligence Advisory Board and the Intelligence Oversight Board, Institute. Professor Meltzer will work together with ALI Director on which he continues to serve. He is also a coauthor of recent edi- Lance Liebman until Professor Liebman completes his 15-year tions of a classic casebook, Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts directorship in May 2014.
Recommended publications
  • Cv-14-02052- Tuc-Rm (D

    Cv-14-02052- Tuc-Rm (D

    Derek E. Bambauer <[email protected]> 520.621.5411 1201 E. Speedway, Tucson AZ 85721 Teaching Experience University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, AZ. Professor of Law (2013- present). • Associate Professor of Law (2012-2013). • Founder and faculty director, IP and Entrepreneurship Clinic. • Faculty advisor, Arizona Intellectual Property & Cyberlaw Society, Arizona Journal of Emerging Technologies. • Courses taught: Copyright Law, Cyberlaw, Introduction to Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trade Secrets. Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY. Associate Professor of Law (2010 – 2012). • Assistant Professor of Law (2008-2010). • Voted Professor of the Year by students in 2008-2009. • Advisor / legal consultant, Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP). • Courses taught: Current Controversies in Intellectual Property, Information Privacy Law, Internet Law, Introduction to Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademark Law. Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, MI. Assistant Professor of Law (2006-2008). • Courses taught: Contracts, Copyright Law, Current Controversies in Intellectual Property, Trademark Law. Education Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA. J.D., magna cum laude (2004). • Student Research Fellow, OpenNet Initiative, Berkman Center for Internet & Society. • Researcher, Digital Media project, Berkman Center for Internet & Society. • Teaching Assistant, Professor Daniel Meltzer (Criminal Law). Harvard College, Cambridge, MA. B.A., History and Science, summa cum laude (1996). • Phi Beta Kappa. • National Science Scholar (National Science Foundation). • Graduated in 3 years (awarded Advanced Standing). 1 of 10 Derek E. Bambauer Fellowships Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA. Research Fellow (2004-2006). • Led team researching Internet filtering laws, technology, and practices by states worldwide. Analyzed empirical data from testing of countries’ filtering systems.
  • Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts

    Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts

    SHAW.TOPRINTER (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2017 3:32 AM Beyond the Bully Pulpit: Presidential Speech in the Courts Katherine Shaw* Abstract The President’s words play a unique role in American public life. No other figure speaks with the reach, range, or authority of the President. The President speaks to the entire population, about the full range of domestic and international issues we collectively confront, and on behalf of the country to the rest of the world. Speech is also a key tool of presidential governance: For at least a century, Presidents have used the bully pulpit to augment their existing constitutional and statutory authorities. But what sort of impact, if any, should presidential speech have in court, if that speech is plausibly related to the subject matter of a pending case? Curiously, neither judges nor scholars have grappled with that question in any sustained way, though citations to presidential speech appear with some frequency in judicial opinions. Some of the time, these citations are no more than passing references. Other times, presidential statements play a significant role in judicial assessments of the meaning, lawfulness, or constitutionality of either legislation or executive action. This Article is the first systematic examination of presidential speech in the courts. Drawing on a number of cases in both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, I first identify the primary modes of judicial reliance on presidential speech. I next ask what light the law of evidence, principles of deference, and internal executive branch dynamics can shed on judicial treatment of presidential speech.
  • Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System

    Common Intellectual Heritage”: Federal and State Courts in Our Federal System

    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\91-5\NDL505.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-SEP-16 13:32 REVISING OUR “COMMON INTELLECTUAL HERITAGE”: FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS IN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM Judith Resnik* ABSTRACT This Essay pays tribute to Daniel Meltzer’s insight that, to the extent “lawyers have a common intellectual heritage, the federal courts are its primary source.” I do so by analyzing how that heritage is made and remade, as political forces press Congress to deploy federal courts to protect a wide array of interests and state courts absorb the bulk of litigation. The heritage that Meltzer celebrated and to which he contributed was the outcome of twenti- eth-century social movements that focused on the federal courts as hospitable venues, serving as vivid sources of rights and remedies. A competing heritage has since emerged, as the Supreme Court shaped new doctrines constricting judicial powers and rendering courts unavailable and unavailing. Despite the Court’s reluctance to welcome claimants, Congress continues to endow the fed- eral courts with new authority and significant funds. But what the federal government has thus far ignored are the needs of state courts, where 100 million cases are filed annually and states struggle to honor constitutional commitments to open courts and rights to counsel for criminal defendants. Once state courts come into focus, two other and competing understanding of courts come to the fore. One merits the term “enabling courts,” as judges aim to equip litigants with lawyers and resources for conflicts related to families, housing, and health. From “Civil Gideon” move- ments and self-help forms to drug and reentry courts, new initiatives underscore the goals of using courts to be responsive to social needs.
  • Case 4:21-Cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 34

    Case 4:21-Cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 34

    Case 4:21-cv-00416 Document 1 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 34 1 Abigail P. Barnes (Bar No. 313809) Scarlet Kim* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP Dror Ladin* 2 Salesforce Tower Hina Shamsi* 415 Mission Street, Suite 5400 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 3 San Francisco, California 94105-2533 FOUNDATION Telephone: +1 (415) 591-6000 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor 4 Facsimile: +1 (415) 591-6091 New York, NY 10004 Email: [email protected] Telephone: +1 (212) 549-2660 5 Email: [email protected], [email protected], Trisha B. Anderson* [email protected] 6 David M. Zionts* Alexander N. Ely* *Application for admission pro hac vice 7 Diana Lee* forthcoming COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 8 One CityCenter Attorneys for Plaintiffs 850 Tenth Street, NW 9 Washington, DC 20001-4956 Telephone: +1 (202) 662-6000 10 Facsimile: +1 (202) 662-6291 Email: [email protected], [email protected], 11 [email protected], [email protected] 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 LEILA N. SADAT; K. ALEXA KOENIG; NAOMI Civil Case No.: ROHT-ARRIAZA; and STEVEN M. WATT, 15 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND Plaintiffs, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 v. 17 DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as 18 President of the United States; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MICHAEL R. 19 POMPEO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; 20 STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S. DEPARTMENT 21 OF JUSTICE; JEFFREY A. ROSEN, in his official capacity as Acting Attorney General; OFFICE OF 22 FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL; and ANDREA M.
  • 'One Can Never Harbour Too Much Doubt in Matters Concerning the State'

    'One Can Never Harbour Too Much Doubt in Matters Concerning the State'

    ACADEMIC NEWS ‘One can never harbour too much doubt in matters concerning the State’ John A.E. Vervaele A laudation delivered by Professor John A.E. Vervaele* at the Dom Church in Utrecht on 26 March 2007 when awarding a Doctorate Honoris Causa to Professor Diane Marie Amann on the occasion of the 371st anniversary of Utrecht University. ‘On ne doute jamais trop, quand il s’agit de l’Etat’, ‘One can never harbour too much doubt in matters concerning the State’.1 This statement by the French philosopher Bourdieu is the maxim of the work of Professor Diane Marie Amann. Professor Amann’s academic work examines the law’s response to globalization; in particular, the interaction of national, regional, and international legal regimes which are at play in efforts to combat atrocities and cross-border crime. Changes circulate around the world of criminal justice. There is increased attention to global crime – money laundering, terrorism, crimes against humanity. Amann’s scholarly work reflects a strong legal and inter- and intradisciplinary approach. She combines inside knowledge from legal and political science. Within legal science she combines legal thinking from Domestic Criminal Procedure, Federal Jurisdiction and Public International Law with legal concepts of International Criminal Law, Transnational Criminal Law, International Human Rights Law and Comparative Constitutional Law. The result is a myriad of surprising analysis and a richness of teaching. Let me pay some attention to three mainstream aspects in her work. Global justice in criminal matters leads to increasing cooperation between states and to the establishment of supranational criminal tribunals. She analyzes watershed moments in the convergence of law, producing a transnational legal process theory, based on the need for a model constitutional criminal procedure.
  • Bernard D. Meltzer (1914-2007), Nuremberg Prosecutor

    Bernard D. Meltzer (1914-2007), Nuremberg Prosecutor

    Bernard D. Meltzer (1914-2007), Nuremberg prosecutor John Q. Barrett* Copyright © 2007 by John Q. Barrett. All rights reserved. Bernard David Meltzer, who was remembered at a University of Chicago Law School memorial service on February 2, 2007, was 92 years old when he died on January 4th at his home in Chicago. Sixty-one years ago, United States Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) Meltzer served on Justice Robert H. Jackson’s staff in Nuremberg as Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States. Lt. Meltzer was the one of the youngest U.S. prosecutors to address the International Military Tribunal in the case against the principal Nazi war criminals. Bernie Meltzer’s path to Nuremberg was, like all of his highly accomplished life, varied and interesting. Born and raised in Philadelphia and not destined, to his great regret, for a career in professional baseball,1 Bernie first attended Temple University and then transferred to the University of Chicago. He received his A.B. in 1935 and then enrolled at the University of Chicago Law School, graduating first in his class in 1937. During 1937-38, Bernie earned a LL.M. degree at Harvard Law School, where he studied under and became a favorite of Professor Felix Frankfurter. In 1938, Meltzer began to practice law, both public and private. He worked for two years at the Securities and Exchange Commission, first in the general counsel’s office and then as assistant to chairman Jerome N. Frank. After a private practice stint with Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt back in Chicago, Bernie returned to Washington, where he worked at the National Defense Commission on procurement matters and then at the Department of State, first on Lend-Lease matters for assistant secretary Dean Acheson and then as acting chief of the foreign funds control division.
  • Saving the Federal Circuit

    Saving the Federal Circuit

    SAVING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Paul R. Gugliuzza* INTRODUCTION Is it time to abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases? In the thought-provoking speech at the center of this symposium, Judge Diane Wood says yes.1 The Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, she argues, provides too much legal uniformity, which harms the patent system.2 But rather than eliminating the court altogether, Judge Wood proposes to save the Federal Circuit by letting appellants in patent cases choose the forum, allowing them to appeal either to the Federal Circuit or to the regional circuit encompassing the district court.3 Judge Wood is in good company arguing that the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction should be eliminated. In their pioneering article, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, Professors Craig Nard and John Duffy proposed to replace the court’s exclusive jurisdiction with a model of “polycentric decision making” under which two or three courts would hear patent appeals, permitting inter-court dialogue and enhancing the possibility for self-correction.4 Judge Wood’s colleague on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner, also has recently said that he “[doesn’t] think the Federal Circuit has * Copyright © 2014 Paul R. Gugliuzza. Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law. For comments, thanks to Jonas Anderson, Jack Beermann, Jonathan Darrow, Stacey Dogan, Wendy Gordon, Tim Holbrook, Megan La Belle, Mark Lemley, Mike Meurer, Michael Morley, Rachel Rebouché, David Schwartz, David Walker, and students and faculty at the Boston University School of Law IP Workshop. Thanks also to the Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property for the opportunity to respond to Judge Wood’s remarks.
  • Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals

    Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
  • Sotomayor August 11 Mgdc NEED NEW GRAPHS

    Sotomayor August 11 Mgdc NEED NEW GRAPHS

    “Not that Smart”: Sonia Sotomayor and the Construction of Merit Guy-Uriel Charles, Daniel L. Chen & Mitu Gulati Duke University School of Law Abstract The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court in 2009 was criticized as sacrificing merit on the altar of identity politics. According to critics, Sotomayor was simply “not that smart”. For some conservative critics, her selection illustrated the costs of affirmative action policies, in that this particular choice was going to produce a lower quality Supreme Court. For liberal critics, many were concerned that the President, by selecting Sotomayor, was squandering an opportunity to appoint an intellectual counterweight to conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Using a set of basic measures of judicial merit, such as publication and citation rates for the years 2004-06, when Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, we compare her performance to that of her colleagues on the federal appeals courts. Sotomayor matches up well. She might turn out to be more of a force on the Court than the naysayers predicted. “NOT THAT SMART”: SONIA SOTOMAYOR AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF MERIT Guy-Uriel Charles Daniel L. Chen Mitu Gulati1 I. “NOT NEARLY AS SMART AS SHE SEEMS TO THINK SHE IS” When President Barack Obama was considering whether to nominate to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor, then a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a prominent law professor, Laurence Tribe, wrote a letter to the President opposing Sotomayor’s potential nomination on the ground that “she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is.”2 While Tribe’s assessment was intended as a private communication, others were saying something similar in public.
  • NGA | 2017 Annual Report

    NGA | 2017 Annual Report

    N A TIO NAL G ALL E R Y O F A R T 2017 ANNUAL REPORT ART & EDUCATION W. Russell G. Byers Jr. Board of Trustees COMMITTEE Buffy Cafritz (as of September 30, 2017) Frederick W. Beinecke Calvin Cafritz Chairman Leo A. Daly III Earl A. Powell III Louisa Duemling Mitchell P. Rales Aaron Fleischman Sharon P. Rockefeller Juliet C. Folger David M. Rubenstein Marina Kellen French Andrew M. Saul Whitney Ganz Sarah M. Gewirz FINANCE COMMITTEE Lenore Greenberg Mitchell P. Rales Rose Ellen Greene Chairman Andrew S. Gundlach Steven T. Mnuchin Secretary of the Treasury Jane M. Hamilton Richard C. Hedreen Frederick W. Beinecke Sharon P. Rockefeller Frederick W. Beinecke Sharon P. Rockefeller Helen Lee Henderson Chairman President David M. Rubenstein Kasper Andrew M. Saul Mark J. Kington Kyle J. Krause David W. Laughlin AUDIT COMMITTEE Reid V. MacDonald Andrew M. Saul Chairman Jacqueline B. Mars Frederick W. Beinecke Robert B. Menschel Mitchell P. Rales Constance J. Milstein Sharon P. Rockefeller John G. Pappajohn Sally Engelhard Pingree David M. Rubenstein Mitchell P. Rales David M. Rubenstein Tony Podesta William A. Prezant TRUSTEES EMERITI Diana C. Prince Julian Ganz, Jr. Robert M. Rosenthal Alexander M. Laughlin Hilary Geary Ross David O. Maxwell Roger W. Sant Victoria P. Sant B. Francis Saul II John Wilmerding Thomas A. Saunders III Fern M. Schad EXECUTIVE OFFICERS Leonard L. Silverstein Frederick W. Beinecke Albert H. Small President Andrew M. Saul John G. Roberts Jr. Michelle Smith Chief Justice of the Earl A. Powell III United States Director Benjamin F. Stapleton III Franklin Kelly Luther M.
  • Beth Van Schaack Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Center for Human Rights & International Justice

    Beth Van Schaack Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Center for Human Rights & International Justice

    Beth Van Schaack Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights, Stanford Law School Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Center for Human Rights & International Justice EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN • PhD in International Criminal Law (2020) YALE LAW SCHOOL, J.D. (1997) • Student Director, Schell Center for International Human Rights & Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic • Editor, YALE LAW JOURNAL STANFORD UNIVERSITY, B.A. (1991) • Majored in Human Biology with a concentration in Feminism & Public Policy • Phi Beta Kappa EXPERIENCE STANFORD LAW SCHOOL (2014-present) • Acting Director, International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic (Spring & Fall 2019). Supervise students engaged in full-time human rights clinical projects involving fact-finding, litigation, and advocacy on behalf of clients and partner organizations. • Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights. Teaching, blogging, and writing in multiple areas of international law. Courses developed and taught: Human Rights Theory & Practice; Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Human Trafficking; International Justice; Contemporary Issues in International Criminal Law; International Criminal Law: From Stanford to The Hague (with a field study to The Netherlands); Human Trafficking: Law & Policy (with a field study to Thailand); Understanding the Impact of New Technologies on Human Rights Investigations & Transitional Justice (with field study to Colombia); and Human Rights Stories. • Co-Founder & Co-Director, Stanford Human Rights in Trauma Mental Health Program, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine. • Lecturer, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine. • Faculty Affiliate, Stanford Center for Human Rights & International Justice. CENTER FOR ADVANCED STUDY IN THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES (2017-18). • Fellow. Conducted research on innovations in accountability and transitional justice emerging from the conflicts in Syria and Iraq.
  • STATEMENT of LAWYERS and LEGAL SCHOLARS AGAINST U.S. SANCTIONS on ICC INVESTIGATORS of ATROCITIES June 2020 As Lawyers and Lega

    STATEMENT of LAWYERS and LEGAL SCHOLARS AGAINST U.S. SANCTIONS on ICC INVESTIGATORS of ATROCITIES June 2020 As Lawyers and Lega

    STATEMENT OF LAWYERS AND LEGAL SCHOLARS AGAINST U.S. SANCTIONS ON ICC INVESTIGATORS OF ATROCITIES June 2020 As lawyers and legal scholars with experience in the fields of international law and national security, we urge the President to rescind his June 11 Executive Order targeting investigators and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Order authorizes asset freezes and visa denials against ICC lawyers and officials who investigate U.S. personnel, including military and CIA personnel for alleged torture, rape, and other war crimes in Afghanistan, and relatedly at CIA “black sites” in Lithuania, Poland and Romania. All of these States are Parties to the ICC, an international court to which 123 countries – including our democratic allies in Europe and nations such as Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, Japan, South Africa and South Korea – are parties. The ICC is authorized by its statute to prosecute genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, committed on the territories of its State Parties. The undersigned have a diversity of views on the ICC and its Afghanistan investigation. However, we share the conviction that sanctioning ICC lawyers for carrying out their responsibilities to investigate atrocities is wrong in principle, contrary to American values, and prejudicial to U.S. national security. U.S. sanctions have long been legitimately imposed on terrorists, international criminals, and gross violators of human rights. But targeting ICC lawyers – and in some cases their families – punishes the very people who investigate atrocities. Seeking to intimidate investigators and punish prosecutors perverts the purpose and undermines the legitimacy of sanctions. The Afghanistan investigation is not a case of runaway prosecutors.