WingNews logo WingNews GitHub [2]

jakewalker's comments

jakewalker | 6 years ago | on: Starbucks, monetary superpower

That may be part of it, but Starbucks has done a very good job of getting their regular customers to sign up for their loyalty program and online/app ordering, and to have them sign up for automatically replenishing (every time my balance goes below $10, load another $25) gift card accounts to use both features.

jakewalker | 10 years ago | on: Judge: There’s no proof Yelp manipulates reviews

The standards for adequately pleading a securities fraud lawsuit -- which this was -- are incredibly high, and the plaintiff has to meet that standard without access to any discovery from the Defendant (here, Yelp). Which is all a way of saying that it is extremely difficult to read too much into the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit.

The judge in this case was basically concluding that plaintiff -- a Yelp investor -- could not adequately allege in his complaint that Yelp or its executives made a false statement of material fact in connection with the sale of a security. And plaintiff had an extremely high burden to survive such a motion to dismiss because of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Securities_Litigation_...).

So, in short, there is very little that one can conclude about Yelp's actual practices (for better or for worse) from learning that a securities lawsuit like this was dismissed.

jakewalker | 11 years ago | on: U.S. NSA domestic phone spying program illegal: appeals court

There is a doctrine called "constitutional avoidance" - if a court can decide a case on grounds without reaching a constitutional question (particularly a close question), it ought to decide the case on the alternative grounds and avoid the constitutional question.

So, for example, a court might say: This action was improper because it was not authorized by Congress. That is all we need to decide. Because we made this decision, we don't need to reach the constitutional question. Of course, if Congress had authorized this action (or now does so), and this case is back before us, we will no longer be able to take that path. We may, at that time, decide that the congressionally-authorized action is unconstitutional. But because there is no need to do reach that decision at this time, we decline to do so.

Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

jakewalker | 11 years ago | on: The Slave Ship That Ran from Kerala to New Orleans

Thanks. We represent the plaintiffs on a pro bono basis. Actually, almost a dozen law firms are donating their time to these cases (after class certification was denied, the workers were required to bring their lawsuits individually). It is tremendously rewarding work, and for me a great opportunity to take on responsibility I might not otherwise get at this stage of my career.
page 1
more