Williamson &Young, PC------THIS PC WILL BE DISSOLVED WITH THE AZ CORPORATION COMMISSION AS OF 2022

“2017 Publication of article about racial selective prosecution in sex trafficking cases by Kathleen Williamson - October 28, 2017 Springer published a collection of anthropological articles titled "Third Party Sex Work and Pimps in the Age of Anti-trafficking" edited by Amber Horning and Anthony Marcus (2017). Kathleen co-authored an article with Marcus titled "Black Pimps Matter: Racially Selective Identification and Prosecution of Sex Trafficking in the United States.” - Kathleen Williamson and Anthony Marcus

“Congratulations Jon Young on a big win in the Smith case, with Ninth Circuit finding that Smith was intellectually disabled during his trial and, therefore, under Atkins, is not subject to the death penalty. This was a long, arduous, task for Jon and well done. Click on the link in the blog below to read the opinion.” - Smith v Schiro, file Feb. 4, 2016

“Protect Your Copyrights: Do Lunch and Contracts” - Chapter by Kathleen Williamson- Editor Mark Halloran

“Judge Rules for Unrepresented Defendant in RIAA Copyright Case. The San Francisco-based advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed friend-of-the-court pleadings in the case. Fred von Lohman, of the foundation, and Kathleen Genevieve Williamson, of Tucson's Williamson & Young represent the foundation. The music companies involved in the suit are Atlantic Recording Corp., Electra Entertainment Group Inc., Capitol Records Inc., UMG Recordings Inc., Sony BMG's Sony BMC Music Entertainment and Arista Records units. The case against the Howells is Atlantic Recording Corp., v. Pamela and Jeffery Howell, 2:06-cv-02076-NVW, U.S. District Court, District of Arizona (Phoenix Division).” - Victoria Slind-For

“Threat Level, authored by David Kravets, on the AP v Blogger conflict. This entails very important implications about journalism and copyrights and they way bloggers cite, plagarize, quote, link and/or exploit the work of other news and literary media. Kathleen's advice to bloggers is noted in this article. Thanks to David for his excellent reporting on these issues, including your work on the RIAA cases.” - David Kravets - Threat Level

“Thank You for Not Sharing Arizonans are being forced to defend themselves against high-dollar illegal-music lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America” - Mari Herrera

“Virginia and Vita, Still Linked After All These Years" Together the actors capture the shimmering, ethereal connection between their characters. Vita says passionately, “I am reduced to a thing that wants Virginia,” and Virginia responds with a look of pain and slight confusion. This graceful revival, directed by Pamela Berlin and presented by the No Frills Company, shows up frills for the unnecessary details they are. “Vita & Virginia” continues on Mondays through April 28 at the Zipper Factory Theater, 336 West 37th Street, Manhattan, (212) 352-3101 or thezipperfactory.com” - Caryn James

“Watching Google and Viacom fight it out is like watching "Godzilla vs. Godzilla destroying some Japanese city and deciding which of the Japanese people are going to win," said attorney Kathleen G. Williamson today at SueTube: The Impact of User Generated Content, a panel hosted by CMJ in New York. The panel focused largely on Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit against YouTube with much of the discussion surrounding Viacom's motivations for suing YouTube and what that means for artists, consumers, and businesses. The panel was moderated by David Ardia from Harvard Law School. Panelists included: Steve Bryant from The Hollywood Reporter, Steve Ciabattoni from the Nielsen Company, the singer/songwriter Jonathan Coulton, and the attorney and anthropologist Kathleen G. Williamson, Esq. For more, go to website.” - Frank Smith

“United States v Benavidez-Benavidez was discussed in the following article. Kathleen handled the Daubert motions and hearings. Jon tried the case and briefed and argued the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Copyright (c) 2001 National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Inc. The Champion May, 2001 25 Champion 50 COLUMN: RICO REPORT By Barry Tarlow BARRY TARLOW is a nationally prominent criminal defense lawyer practicing in Los Angeles, CA. He is a frequent author and lecturer on criminal law. He was formerly a prosecutor in the United States Attorney's Office and is a member of The Champion Advisory Board. Readers are a vital source of information without which this column could not be supplied with current information on RICO developments. Information regarding developments in pending cases, decisions and interesting briefs and motions are of interest. CONTACT: Barry Tarlow, RICO Report, 9119 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles CA 90069, Phone (310) 278-2111, Fax (310) 550-7055. Excerpt of TEXT: [*50] Polygraph Evidence in the Post-Daubert Era and the Admissibility of Soft Expert Testimony Judicial evaluation of the admission of polygraph evidence has followed a long and tortuous history, particularly in the Ninth Circuit. See RICO Report, The Champion (Dec. 1995). In the middle of last year, a single three-judge panel took the opportunity to offer further misguidance in two separate cases. In United States v. Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2000), the panel affirmed a district judge's decision, after an extensive admissibility hearing, to exclude polygraph testimony based on a finding that the evidence would be more prejudicial than probative. Fed. R. Evid. 403. The panel did not reach this conclusion without taking a gratuitous swipe at the general reliability of polygraph evidence, encouraging district judges to freely reject such evidence, and inviting district courts to limit admissibility hearings... Surprisingly, although the panel had an extensive factual record before it, its criticism of polygraph evidence was not based on evidence presented to the trial court. Instead, the panel impugned polygraph evidence based on the ruminations of other judges who had passed on the admissibility of similar evidence. While the "admissibility" of evidence and whether a scientific test is "sufficiently reliable" are certainly legal questions, the reliability of the evidence vel non is obviously a question that can only be answered by reference to facts such as scientific studies of the test's accuracy and fallibility. When it came to citing an evidentiary basis for its criticisms, however, the panel opinion was conspicuously silent. Notwithstanding the hostility so manifestly expressed by this particular panel, the judges did acknowledge that the circuit's former "per se rule excluding polygraph evidence had been effectively overruled" by Daubert. United States v. Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d at 724, citing United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d at 228.” - Barry Tarlow