Conflicts of Laws, by Naira Renault (MD, JSM, PhD)

Hillary Rotmouth Clinton has recently manufactured another boring mug, currently promoted in the market. This is my response mug that "edits" Hillary's content. I do not claim any Copyright or TM over it. Feel free to use and reuse it by printing the image on the apron, placemat, doormat, or toilet paper rolls.

A 10-minute TED talk concerning the history of ethics & law separation, the reasons and ways of such separation, and the current state of the conflict based on modern-day cases. Conventionally, it concludes with an authentic Quiz of multiple-choice questions, followed by an answer key on slide 17.

Cases, scenarios, essays and answers. Music credit to the Austrian composer Carl Czerny (Etudes for Piano).

Why Do You Need My Virtual Lectures?

An "A to Z" interpretation of the Trademark Law in the United States, this lecture expands by showing how to read pure silvermarks from the British, German, and Imperial Russian masters, and how to detect counterfeits.

Interpreting a gargantuan federal law in one presentation. Music credits to the Hungarian composers: Franz Liszt (for Liebestraum, and La Campanella), Jenő Takács (for Toccata No 1), Karl Goldmark (for Piano Trio No 2).

Interpreting an emotionally and semantically intricate case with my non-inherent arguments. Music credit to Ludwig van Beethoven for "Moonlight Sonata III, Presto Agitato." [Erratum]: salon.org should be salon.com. [Addendum]: Forgot and omitted a slide where I argued about the inaccurate testimony of slaughter. Punching "Jugular Vein" typically leads to death by embolism, not by hemorrhage. It is most likely that the defendants had cut the Carotid Artery (not the Jugular Vein) because they had drunk blood after the slaughter. Although this correction would not update the prosecution process, my point is that the prosecution and the judges did not pay attention to this technical reality and kept repeating and rewriting the case from the verbiage of initial testimony.

Independent science score of Scholar Google

The multi-genre books are clustered to present legal studies, medical science, travel diaries in pourquoi tale style, poetry, novels/fiction, and history recaps.

"Conflicts of Laws" (CFL) is the least tested topic in legal studies due to the rigid perspective that CFL is "not a stand-alone subject." The National Conference of Bar Examiners holds that CFL "shan't be tested by itself." This standard mainly tests CFL with other subjects: family law, intestacy, domicile, or corporations. The aim of this channel is to (1) test CFL as a stand-alone subject -- both between and within jurisdictions and (2) expand the fields of laws in which CFL will be tested, inclusive for the: human organ & tissue transplantation matters, abortion tourism, surrogacy tourism, antitrust, e-commerce, chattel laws, Laws of the Armed Conflicts or U.S. Maritime Aviation losses - especially for the frictions of substantive laws.

Neither legal prognosis nor advice, this is a retrospective, empirical/quantitative (correlative, inverse causational) analysis of 32 published decisions under the Espionage Act (1917), the Sedition Act (1918), the Smith Act (1940-1948), the Presidential Records Act (1978), the F.I.S.A. (1978), the C.I.P.A. (1980), the Presidential Libraries Act (1986), the Economic Espionage Act (1996) as well as several Executive Orders (from Reagan to Obama), Restatements of Law, and Obiter Dicta. The results and conclusions are followed by 12 multiple-choice review questions. Music credit to Carl Czerny (the Austrian School of Velocity) for his two Etudes.

A number of sections of Restatement (2nd) Conflicts of Law are interpreted for clearer answers. Conventionally, the presentation concludes with summaries of published court cases and an authentic quiz with the answer key.

The passage of the Judges’ Bill (1925) achieved an absolute arbitrary discretion over the bulk of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket. The creation of 9 original circuits by the Evarts Act (1891) induced the divergence of opinions (i.e. intercircuit conflicts) between those courts (today, 13) and the need to resolve them. As the Court’s certiorari jurisdiction grows and diverse interpretations of a legal point percolate, we keep looking for consistent criteria (behind Rule 10) based on which the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes to buffer, modify, or eliminate a conflict. At least two reasons are seen behind these criteria: (1) Where an Appellate Court fails to foresee or see a conflict because the conflict is still unclear, or the point at issue isn't enumerated in the briefs (intentionally, or ineptly); (2) Where the Supreme Court creates new intercircuit conflicts to escape from solving the pending ones. This presentation tours you into the supreme judiciary "kitchen," views the intercircuit monitor, the mirroring conflicts, the involvement of judicial curbside (off-the-panel), and discusses some explicit cases: Rosenberg v. Yee Chien Woo (1971), Aldinger v. Howard (1976), McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center (1991), Am. W. Airlines v. Nat'l Mediation Bd. (1992), Catholic Soc. Servs. v. Thornburgh (1992), Casey v. Lewis (1993), Reno v. Catholic Soc. Services (1993), United States v. Shabani (1993), United States v. Gaudin (1994), In re Yochum(1996), United States ex rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute (1999), etc. Conventionally, the discussion is followed by a Quiz of multiple-choice questions. Lastly, the brave ones are welcome to leave comments about the need for a National Intercircuit Trubinual (NIT) to unburden the Supreme Court's load as well as to help the ignored cases find their stand.

Beyond juxtaposing the advantages and disadvantages of grafting human donor organs (HDO) and techno-borne organs (TBO), this effort is a comparative analysis of enforceability, limits, and conflicts of the laws governing the HDO and TBO procurement, storage, and use. Specific concerns are : (1) defining “death” while harvesting organs/tissues from the unconsented donors (persons presumably diseased from accidents, incidents, legal executions, as well as viable fetuses); (2) patenting inventions (synthetic or semisynthetic organs); (3) the recipient's constitutional right to refuse scientific study or publication; (4) the recipient's advance directive (living will) dissenting autopsy and TBO recycling. “Techno-borne organs” (TBO), a term invented by Naira, is broader than “synthetic organs” as it includes artificial (engineered) organs as well as neuro-stimulators, prosthetics, scaffolds, induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSC), human tissue or purified protein polymers, implant microchips, pumps, encapsulated cells (autologous, syngenic, isogenic).