Fighting for Space: Sharing Resources in Space with the International Community

Kaitlyn O’Hara[1]

For the past fifty years, we have commonly referred to space as the final frontier. During that same fifty years, we have come to realize that space resources are quite finite and sharing such resources with the international community can and is creating global conflicts. As a result, the methodology for allocating orbital locations used by the International Telecommunication Union (the “ITU”), an agency of the United Nations, will have a lasting impact on the growth and development of technologies dependent on space assets. Due to the need for unanimous approval of all ITU rules, such rules, the Radio Regulations, often include broad language that allows for technological growth in the satellite industry, but also provides opportunities for speculation of orbital locations. One example of such broad language is in the ITU’s requirements for demonstrating use of an orbital location.[2] The 2012 World Radio Conference (the “WRC”) will continue the efforts of previous WRCs to address methods for ensuring efficient use of orbital locations.[3] Any changes to the Radio Regulations must favor transparency to allow for space-faring nations to take on a greater role in enforcing the Radio Regulations and the ITU to better understand how orbital locations are truly used or not used, as the case may be.

Click to read more ...

A Morass of Contradictions: Mistake of Fact as to Consent in Rape cases

Rashmi Goel[1]

David is a big, strong guy. He plays football, and he has a reputation for going through a lot of girlfriends. Vanessa is petite, 5’ 2” and 105 pounds. David and Vanessa have been dating for three weeks. On the Saturday in question, David feels ready to take their relationship to the next level. On their date that night, they kiss and fondle each other through their clothing as they had before. Eventually, both are almost naked and David performs oral sex on Vanessa. During the oral sex, Vanessa exclaims “Don’t stop!” David takes this as a request to proceed to sexual intercourse. He moves up till his hips are even with hers. He puts his penis in her vagina. Vanessa breathes out “No”, but her voice is muffled by his weight on top of her. David doesn’t hear her. Vanessa says “no” a second time, and David understands that she is uncomfortable. He shifts his weight, but he doesn’t pull out. “David” she protests, annoyed, but he doesn’t respond. He seems far away mentally, in his own world. He is on top of her, panting, with his eyes closed and his heavy hands on her shoulders. He is moving faster. Vanessa is shocked. She cannot find her voice; there is a hard lump in her throat. She cannot believe this is happening to her. They had not agreed to intercourse. She did not want intercourse. She tries to free her hips and roll out from under him, but he is just too big and heavy for her to move him. His fingers are digging into her shoulders, and she starts to cry. He is oblivious to this. He climaxes quickly and rolls off, apologizing. The whole thing might have been less than a minute, but to Vanessa it felt like a long time. She is still crying, and freed from his weight, rushes to the bathroom, locks the door, and through the door, tells David to leave. Stunned and confused, David tries to calm her. He pleads with her to come out, but to no avail. After several exasperating minutes, he leaves. The next morning, Vanessa reports to police that she has been raped.[2]

Click to read more ...

Uncertainty Surrounding the Statute of Repose in Colorado Construction Defect Actions

Shane Fleener[1]

While a statute of limitations begins running when a claim arises, a statute of repose bars bringing a suit after a set period of time, regardless of whether an injury has occurred or a claim has arisen.[2] In general, the purpose of a statute of repose is to prevent parties from asserting “stale claims” and to reduce the so-called “long tail” of liability created by the discovery rule.[3]

Click to read more ...

Shareholder Access and Uneconomic Economic Analysis: Business Roundtable v. SEC

J. Robert Brown, Jr.[1]

Business Roundtable v. SEC[2] arose out of a legal challenge to what is probably the most controversial rule ever adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC or Commission). Rule 14a-11, commonly known as the “shareholder access” rule, mandated that public companies allow long term shareholders to include nominees for the board of directors in the company’s proxy statement.[3] The rule held out the promise that shareholders would be able to more easily nominate and elect their own candidates to the board. Access was popular among shareholders and strenuously opposed by public companies.[4]

Click to read more ...

The Rule 54(b) Balance With Knapp: Why Complexity In “Our Rules” And Colorado’s Code of Judicial Conduct Require Our Courts To Be A Surrogate For Pro Se Litigants

Patricia M. Martin

In 1953, the Colorado Supreme Court rendered its decision in Knapp v. Fleming thereby creating staris decisis on the issue of how our Colorado court judges should treat pro se litigants: “[A] litigant is permitted to present his own case, but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required.” Plaintiff Knapp’s pro se action to recover a $250 judgment, plus interest, against Defendant, was reversed and dismissed over Defendant’s motion. Knapp subsequently filed a Writ of Error, also pro se, in Colorado Supreme Court. The court dismissed his case on finding that Knapp had failed to “comply with our rules.” In essence, because Knapp did not understand “our rules,” his case was dismissed. Shortly after Knapp was decided, Viles v. Scofield,[5] citing Knapp, stated “[I]t appears from the record, that plaintiff is acting here, and acted in the court below, as his own attorney,” and further stated, “[o]therwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.”

Click to read more ...